Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Md. Mumtaz Khan, Jay Sengupta, JJ.
Ashok Santra @ Khoka and Another – Appellants
Vs.
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2006, 7 of 2007
Decided On : 10-12-2018
Prabir Kumar Mitra, Adv., Pinak Kumar Mitra, Adv., Subhanwita Ghosh, Adv., Sudip Ghosh, Adv., Apurba Kumar Dutta, Adv.
The significance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the requirement of an unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code - [Section 302, Section 34]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of three appellants for the murder of the victim, who was married to one of the appellants. The victim was found dead after being taken for a feast by the appellants and another accused. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the victim was homicidal and that the appellants were seen and heard in the vicinity of the victim before and after the incident. The court also noted the motive behind the murder, the unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances, and the corroboration by medical evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and upholding of the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the absence of certain forensic evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence and highlighted the importance of an unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances. It also clarified that non-stating a fact to the police in exact words cannot be treated as an improvement during trial.
Final Decision: The prosecution case was proved beyond any reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and upholding of the conviction and sentence.
Jay Sengupta, J.
The two appeals being C.R.A. No. 827/2006 and C.R.A. No. 07/2007 arise out of the same impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and therefore, the two were together taken up for hearing. C.R.A. No. 827/2006 was preferred by two appellants namely Ashok Santra and Chandugopal Koley and C.R.A. No. 07/2007 was preferred by appellant Astam Santra. It may be germane to mention that the appeal being C.R.A. No. 287/2006 had abated as against the appellant Chandugopal Koley as he had passed away on 14th December 2016. The appeals were directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 3rd November 2006 and sentence dated 4th November 2006 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial Case No. 684/2005, thereby convicting all the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentencing them each to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. By the same judgment the accused Madhai Santra was held not guilty of the offence charged with.
2. On 15th June 1993 PW 1 lodged a First Information Report with the Jagatballavpur Police Station against the three appellants and two others under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. PW 1 alleged that her fourth daughter Krishna Jhanj had a love affair with the appellant Astam Santra. About 1 years ago the two got married by registration. But thereafter the appellant Astam Santra became deeply involved with PW 9. On 13th June 1993 at about 21:00 hours the said appellants Astam Santra and the accused Pratima Pal took away the victim for the purpose of a feast. PW 1, in good faith, allowed her daughter to go. At about 21:30 hours PW 1 went to the house of the appellant Astam Santra and found Astam Santra, Madhai Santra, Khoka Santra and Pratima Pal present there. Astam told her that some more time will be required. Next day at about 4:30 hours PW 1 found her daughter lying dead on the bank of a 'doba'.
3. Investigation commenced. PW 15, a Sub Inspector of Police, held the inquest over the dead body of the victim on 14th June 1993 at 11:30 hours in the village near a pond where the body of the deceased was lying. He found the face of the body to be darker than the rest of the body, blood percolated from the nose and froth from the mouth and the tongue came out. On enquiry, PW 15 learnt that the appellant Astam and the victim, although married by way of a registration, were living separately as unmarried. He learnt that in the night of 13th June 1993 the victim was seen sitting on a rock and gossiping with the appellant Astam Santra and the accused Pratima Pal. The victim did not return home that night. PWs 6 and 11 were two of the witnesses to the inquest. On 15th June 1993 at about 15:00 hours, PW 13 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the victim. In his opinion death was due to garrotting by cloth possibly from behind and it was homicidal and ante-mortem in nature. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a chargesheet. On 24th February 2006 charges were framed against the appellants Astam Santra, Ashok Santra, Chandugopal Koley and accused Madhai Santra. It may be pertinent to state that the accused Pratima Pal did not face the trial and passed away during investigation.
4. The prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses to establish its case. From the cross-examination of the witnesses by the defence and from the examination under Section 313 of the Code it appears that the defence case was primarily a denial of the prosecution case.
5. From a careful perusal of the evidence on record it appears that, PW 1 was the de facto complainant of the case and the mother of the deceased Krishna Jhanj. She deposed that the victim and the appellant Astam were married to each other both by 'registry' marriage as well as by social ceremony. Sometimes the vi
