Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Madhumati Mitra, J.
Jitendranath Biswas - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2011
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Amartya Ghosh, Advocate, Rituparna Ghosh, Advocate, Binoy Panda, Advocate, Subham Bhakat, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an extra-judicial confession, without corroboration and made under questionable circumstances, cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Misappropriation - Section 409 - Summary of the case: The appellant, a school headmaster, was convicted for misappropriating book grant funds for SC/ST students. The prosecution alleged that the appellant did not disburse the funds and forged students' signatures. The appellant denied the charges and retracted an alleged extra-judicial confession. The prosecution relied on the confession and the appellant's deposit of the amount in the school's bank account. The court found discrepancies in the evidence and lack of corroboration for the confession, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a school headmaster, was accused of misappropriating book grant funds for SC/ST students by not disbursing the funds and forging students' signatures. The appellant denied the charges and retracted an alleged extra-judicial confession. The prosecution relied on the confession and the appellant's deposit of the amount in the school's bank account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the evidence, lack of corroboration for the confession, and insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the appellant was acquitted and set at liberty.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misappropriation of funds, the reliability of the extra-judicial confession, and the appellant's deposit of the amount in the school's bank account.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accusation against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The confession lacked corroboration and did not inspire confidence. The evidence brought on record was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and discharged from bail bonds. The appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT
Madhumati Mitra, J. - This appeal is presented by the convicted accused/Appellant against the Judgment dated 18.11.2010 and the sentence dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Learned Judge Special 4th Court, Burdwan in special Case No.4 of 2006 convicting the present appellant for committing the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and also to fine him of Rs.1000/- i.d. simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant was the Head Master of A.C,M. High School at Shibloon, Burdwan. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one Tapan Kumar Kisku, Ketugram Police Station Case No. 63 of 2004 dated 24.08.2004 was initiated against the appellant for commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the said First Information Report that an amount of Rs.850/- out the Government - grant received by the said school for disbursement to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes students, for the purpose of purchase of books was defalcated and thereby the appellant abused his official position in the capacity of a public servant.
3. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. Learned Judge, Special Court framed charge against the appellant/accused for commission of alleged offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Accused/Appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
5. Defence case as it appeared from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the examination of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case.
6. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and relied on Ext. Nos. 1 to 14.
7. Learned Trial Judge upon evaluation of the materials on record convicted the appellant/accused for committing the offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on the ground the Learned Judge failed to take into consideration the discrepancies in evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned Counsel has argued that the Learned Judge overlooked the contradictions of the evidence of prosecution witnesses which went to the root of the prosecution case and rendered the prosecution story unbelievable. It has been forcefully contended by the Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant that the Learned Judge mainly relied on the extra judicial confession to record the conviction which was totally inadmissible in evidence. He has continued to argue that the alleged confession was made before a superior officer who was a person in authority and such that alleged confessional statement was not free from threat, inducement and coercion. According to his contention the conclusion arrived at by the Learned Judge regarding the guilt of the accused/Appellant was not justified. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant has laid stress on the ground that the accused subsequently retracted and as such the Learned Judge was not justified to place reliance on alleged extra judicial confession.
9. During the course of hearing Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant has forcefully contended that there was allegation in the First Information Report against the accused/appellant for defalcation of funds and the prosecution totally failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant defalcated the book grant of the students. He has further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove by cogent evidence that signatures of the students were forged by the accused/appellant being the Head Master of the school. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant has contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
