Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Arijit Banerjee, J.
Dhenu Murmu - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2006
Decided On : 24-01-2020
P.S. Bhattacharya, Advocate, Arun Kr Maity, Advocate, Zareen N Khan, Advocate
The judgment emphasizes the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, allowing for adverse inferences to be drawn when the accused fails to explain circumstances within their knowledge. It also highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his sister-in-law and her unborn child. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's opportunity and motive to commit the crime, immediate reporting of the homicidal death, and the chain of circumstances leading to the allegation of murder.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to convict the accused, as there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's failure to explain the blood stains on his shirt and the pen knife with blood on it allowed for an adverse inference to be drawn against him, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court also emphasized that the accused's plea of alibi was not substantiated.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and order of the trial court. The court also considered the accused's lengthy custody and suggested that an application for remission could be made.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Banerjee, J. - This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.10.2004 and 12.10.2004 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Trial No. 15/04 arising out of Sessions Case No. 27/03. The Learned Trial Court convicted the accused/ appellant herein under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murdering his sister-in-law one Sunita Tudu and a child of 15 weeks that she was carrying in her womb during her pregnancy. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one year.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the appellant vis Mondal Murmu had four children, three sons viz Bijoy Murmu, Som Murmu and the appellant and one daughter named Lakhi Murmu. Bijoy Murmu was married to the victim Sunita and they resided in a separate house. The appellant, his father and his other siblings stayed in another house adjacent thereto. The two houses shared a common courtyard.
3. The case of the prosecution as would appear from the written complaint lodged by a local resident named Mose Hembram is that at about 10:00 a.m. on 12.07.2002 the father of the appellant went to the Sarat Tea Estate and told the people working there that his son (the appellant) had killed his daughter-in-law (Sunita) in Sunita's house by a sharp cutting weapon. On hearing this, the victim's husband Bijoy tried to commit suicide by trying to throttle himself with a rope.
4. The accused was apprehended from Jagir Basti under P.S. Puthia, Bihar by Som Hembram (PW7) and Mongal Hembram (PW8) at about 3 PM and then he was handed over to the Chopra police station. After investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC. The charge was read out and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.
5. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. The defence did not examine any witness. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence case is one of denial.
6. The Learned Trial Judge analysed the evidence on record and held that "every pieces of circumstances as appear from the prosecution evidence unmistakably and unerringly indicate that the accused of this case had the opportunity to murder Sunita, he had a strong motive to commit the crime, that the deceased met with an homicidal death, that the information of such homicidal death was reported to the P.S. immediately after the occurrence and the circumstances formed a complete chain leading to the allegation of murder. In the present case the incriminating circumstances as appeared from the prosecution evidence unmistakably and inevitably lead only to the guilt of the accused and none else. The circumstances established in this case complete the chain of the circumstances to prove that accused Dhenu is the perpetrator of the crime and the hero behind the criminal act of murder". Accordingly, the Learned Trial Judge held the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted him. It is this conclusion of the Learned Trial Judge which falls for scrutiny in the present appeal.
7. Before expressing our opinion it would be helpful to briefly go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
8. P.W.1 Mose Hembram is a local resident of the Village where the accused resided. It was he who had lodged the written complaint. He is also the morol (leader) of his village. According to him on the date of the incident he went to the Sarat Tea Estate located at Daduagacch. Then suddenly Mondal Murmu the father of the accused, who was a nonagenarian as well as partially blind and crippled, went there and informed him and others present there that his son had k
