Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
MD MUMTAZ KHAN, JAY SENGUPTA, JJ.
Ismail Kapasi - Appellant
Vs.
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2005
Decided on : 26-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Md Sabir Ahmed, Adv., Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Adv., Ayan Basu, Adv., Saryati Dutta, Adv.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the need for a complete chain of circumstances, and the requirement to rule out all other possibilities than the guilt of the accused were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the victim. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution alleged that the appellant had a motive due to a business dispute between his father and the victim's family. The victim's body had multiple injuries, and the crime scene suggested the involvement of more than one person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances was not complete. There were material contradictions and anomalies in the evidence and materials collected. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the motive of the appellant, the involvement of more than one person in the crime, and the investigative lapses in collecting and analyzing evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be complete and rule out all other possibilities than the guilt of the accused. Material contradictions and anomalies in the evidence and materials collected can raise doubts about the prosecution's case. The failure to collect and match the appellant's blood for group matching was a significant omission.
Final Decision: The court reversed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appellant was ordered to be released if in custody, and the lower court records were to be sent down for necessary action.
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction dated 11th October, 2004 and sentence dated 12th October 2004 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Kolkata in Sessions Trial No. 3 (May), 2003: Sessions Case No. 118/2002 thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. On 3rd June, 2000 at about 19:55 hours, PW 3 lodged a First Information Report under Sections 302 and 394 of the Penal Code against unknown accused alleging looting of articles from his brother’s flat and murder of his brother’s wife Fatema Md. Hossein Burtanwalla. The de facto complainant stated that he along with his family members resided in a flat on the second floor of the house at premises no. 24, Pollock Street, Kolkata700001.
His elder brothers Md. Hossein and Moiz resided with their respective family members in separate flats on the third floor of the house while his youngest brother Fazlu Hossein Burtanwala resided with his family on the top floor of the house. There were tenants on the ground floor. All the four brothers dealt in crockery business in Kolkata. The victim’s married daughter Tahera (PW 20) resided in Maharashtra. The couple had a maid-servant Hafiza Bibi (PW 27) working in their flats for the last fifteen years. The victim could not walk properly due to a physical problem. Usually she used to keep the entrance door of the flat open during day time. PW 17’s son Parvez (PW 14) used to work in the shop of the victim’s husband. The said Parvez had told the victim’s husband that he would not come to work on 3rd June, 2000 as he was to visit his in-laws’ house outside Kolkata. Every day all the brothers and their sons used to leave their flats for their shops by 9:00 hours. So was the case on the fateful day. Being a Saturday the de facto complainant and his son, as usual, returned to their flat at about 18:00 hours. At about 19:00 house the daughter-in-law (PW 4) of Muiz Bhai, another brother, came to his flat and reported that she heard sound of water in the bathroom of the victim and feared that if it continued to fall, then on the next morning there would be a scarcity of water. On hearing this, the de facto complainant went to the third floor and saw the entrance door of the victim’s flat open. Upon not getting any response after calling, he entered the flat and saw articles lying scattered on the cot of the bedroom as well as on the floor. Almirahs were found ransacked. When he reached the drawing room he saw the victim lying with severe bleeding injuries on her head on the floor and the adjoining bathroom. Her brain matters were found lying scattered. A big iron chopper and a knife both stained with blood were lying in the bathroom. The victim appeared dead as she did not respond to calls. Another blood stained knife was found on the floor of the bedroom. Empty jewellery box, vanity bag, etc. were lying scattered. He immediately came down and raised alarm. He also informed the matter to police through the Additional Commissioner of Police (I) over phone. In the meantime the victim’s husband came back. Police too came and started investigation.
3. Mr. P.P. Acharya, the Learned Executive Magistrate, held inquest over the dead body of the victim on 4th June 2000 at 15:30 hours at the police morgue. As per his report (Ext. 25) he found several injuries on the dead body, which are given as under:-
(i) Deep cut injury (fracture) at the left side of head, face, cheek, right side of forehead, chin, lowerlip, right ear, nose, forehead.
(ii) Right side cheek left side chin, 13 abrasion marks at left side shoulder left hand (5), one cut mark at left wrist.
(iii) 4 cut marks at fingers of left hand, abrasion mark at left thumb, (illegible) abrasion at left palm
