Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, JJ.
Prasanta Bauri – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. 270 of 2005
Decided on : 10-01-2018
Indian Penal Code - Conviction - Sections 302, 25/27 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302, Arms Act Sections 25/27 - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the commission of offences under IPC Section 302 and Arms Act Sections 25/27. The court discussed the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and the conduct of the appellant in surrendering himself with the weapon of offence, and concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under IPC Section 302 and Arms Act Sections 25/27 for shooting the victim with a pipe gun. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the appellant's conduct of surrendering himself with the weapon of offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, dismissing the appeal. The court also ordered the period of detention suffered by the appellant to be set off against the substantive sentence.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the seizure of the weapon of offence, and the irregularity in the entries made in the seizure list.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the conduct of the appellant in surrendering himself with the weapon of offence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court records were ordered to be sent down for necessary action.
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Suri in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2002 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentencing the appellant to undergone imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more, all the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 12.11.1998 at about 10 a.m. the victim Sukumar Mete was repairing his cycle in the cycle repairing shop of Prafulla Garai near Dharmashala. At that time the appellant came to the said spot and shot at the victim from a pipe gun. Subsequently, the appellant went to the police station and surrendered himself with the weapon of offence at the said police station. Over this issue, the bother of the appellant, namely Sukhen Mete, P.W.1 lodged first information report resulting in registration of Dubrajpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 1998 dated 12.11.1998 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against the appellant.
3. In the course of investigation sanction for prosecution was obtained and charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Suri for trial and disposal.
4. Charges were framed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
5. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. The defence of the appellant is one of innocence and false implication.
7. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by judgment and order dated 11.03.2005 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
8. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the first information report is hit by section 162 of the Cr.P.C. as prior information with regard to offence was already recorded at the police station. He further submitted that the seizure of weapon of offence is doubtful as the case number was subsequently inserted in the seizure list as admitted by P.W.12. It is further submitted that the names of P.W. 8 and 9 who claimed to be eyewitnesses are not stated in the first information report while Prafulla Garai who was the owner of the cycle repairing shop has not support the prosecution case. Evidence of P.W. 1 suffers from various improbabilities and embellishments and ought to be discarded. It is also submitted that the autopsy surgeon P.W. 5 could not say with certainty that the injury on the victim was caused by the seized firearm. He accordingly prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Maiti, learned counsel for the State argued that the prosecution case is proved through the eyewitnesses, P.W.1, 8 and 9. Evidence of Autopsy Surgeon, P.W. 5, supports the ocular version of the said eyewitnesses. Evidence of P.W. 7, 12 and 15, the police officers establish that soon after the incident the appellant went to the police station and surrendered himself with the pipe gun which clearly established the prosecution case. Sanction has been duly proved in the instant case. Accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. P.W. 1, 8 and 9 are the eyewitnesses in the instant case. P.W. 1 is the brother of the victim and the de facto complainant in the instant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
