SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Cal) 216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Suvra Ghosh, JJ.
Ashok Roy - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2011, 437 of 2011
Decided On : 24-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Sudipto Moitra, Advocate, Vijay Verma, Advocate, Swagata Dutta, Advocate, Kaushik Choudhury, Advocate, Ramkrishna Bhattacharya, Advocate, Sabyasachi Hazra, Advocate, Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Advocate, Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Advocate, Manish Gupta, Advocate

The judgment establishes the importance of credible eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and motive in establishing culpability in criminal cases.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 120B, 302/34, 307/34, 25/27 of the Arms Act, 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellants for their involvement in a bomb attack resulting in the death of Araha Bajpayee and the injuries to Felu Tewari. The court analyzes the evidence, including the testimony of the injured eyewitness, medical evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and the motive of the crime, to establish the culpability of the appellants. The court upholds the conviction and sentence of one appellant while setting aside the conviction of the other appellants and ordering their discharge from bail bonds.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a bomb attack resulting in the death of Araha Bajpayee and injuries to Felu Tewari. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in the attack, while the defense claimed innocence and false implication.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the injured eyewitness's testimony credible, establishing the involvement of one appellant in the attack. The court acquitted the other appellants due to lack of convincing evidence. The court also set aside the conviction of the acquitted appellants and ordered their discharge from bail bonds.

Issues: The main issue was the culpability of the appellants in the bomb attack, as well as the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the injured eyewitness, medical evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and the motive of the crime to establish the culpability of the appellants. The court also considered the lack of convincing evidence in acquitting the other appellants.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of one appellant while setting aside the conviction of the other appellants and ordering their discharge from bail bonds.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 7th June, 2011 and 9th June, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 2(2) 2008 arising out of Sessions Case No.27(5) 2007 convicting the appellants namely Raja Basu Roy (since deceased), Ashok Roy, Raju @ Naru Dubey and Milan @ Milanmoy Tewari for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 9B(1)(b) of the Explosive Act and under Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of life for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment of life and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of 6 months each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and to suffer imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 13.01.2007 at 7.00 a.m. Araha Bajpayee deceased herein, had left his petrol pump in a Scorpio vehicle bearing No.WB38N/7512 which was driven by Felu Tewari (PW 1). At 7:30 a.m. they had reached a bump on the road near village Radhamadhabpur within Gangajalghati Police Station. As a result the vehicle slowed down and at that time 3/4 persons came running towards the vehicle. Felu has identified Raju Dubey, (appellant in CRA 437/11) as one of them. Raju identified the vehicle to the other persons and bombs were thrown at the vehicle. Consequentially, Araha Bajpayee as well as Felu suffered injuries. The miscreants ran away towards Bhadragora in two motor cycles. Both Araha and his driver Felu were shifted to Amarkanon hospital. Araha was declared dead and Felu was shifted to Bankura hospital in injured condition. Statement of Felu was reduced into writing in the hospital by Jitendra Nath Mukherjee (P.W. 15), the then inspector-in-charge of Bankura police station and treated as FIR being Gangajalghati PS Case no. 5 of 2007 dated 13.1.2007 against Raju Dubey and four unknown accused persons. In the FIR it was alleged that Raju had been threatening his master Araha with murder for some time in the past. In the course of investigation the appellants and other accused persons were arrested. On the leading statement of Raju Dubey improvised fire arm, maroon coloured attach case, mobile phone and a motor cycle allegedly used during the incident were recovered. Similarly, on the showing of Raja Basu Roy @ Ujjal Guha (since deceased) and Ashok Roy, improvised fire arms, ash coloured attach case containing documents belonging to petrol pump owned by the deceased and other articles were seized. Arms expert (P.W. 26) opined seized fire arms were in working condition. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and one Pradyut Mondal and Fajlur Rahaman.

3. Charges were framed under Sections 120B, 302/34 & 307/34 IPC, 25/27 of the Arms Act, 9B (1)(b) of the Explosives Act and 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act against the appellants and other accused persons.

4. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses to establish its case and exhibited a number of documents.

5. T

                                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                      1
                                      2
                                      3
                                      4
                                      5
                                      6
                                      7
                                      8
                                      9
                                      10
                                      11
                                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                      supreme today icon
                                      logo-black

                                      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

                                      qr

                                      Scan Me!

                                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                                      whatsapp-icon Back to top