Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.
Archana Roy And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 185 of 2020 with CRAN 3 of 2022 with CRA 121 of 2020 with CRA 127 of 2020 with CRA (DB) 33 of 2022 with CRAN 2 of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Mr. Dhananjay Nayak. Adv., Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Adv., Mr. Sharequl Haque, Adv., Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Prattay Khan, Adv., Mr. Minoti Gomes, Adv., Mr. Apurba Dutta, Adv., for the Appellant; Mr. Pasun Kr. Dutta, Ld. App, Mr. Anasuya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra, Adv. Mr. Subrato Roy, Adv., for the Respondent
The judgment underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and highlights the principle that acknowledgment of a document's contents during cross-examination precludes later objections to its admissibility.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302/120B/201 - [MURDER, CONSPIRACY, EVIDENCE TAMPERING] - [IPC 302, IPC 120B, IPC 201] - The court discussed the evidence presented, including the First Information Report, sketch map of the place of occurrence, and discrepancies in witness testimonies. The court highlighted the presence of the accused at the scene, the torture of the victims over property issues, and the burning of the victims' bodies to destroy evidence. The court found the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Aparna Sarkar and her daughter Susmita Sarkar. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellants' presence at the scene, torture of the victims over property issues, and the burning of the victims' bodies to destroy evidence. The appellants claimed innocence but failed to provide a valid objection to the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. The court dismissed the appeals and ordered the appellants to surrender to serve the remainder of their sentences.
Issues: The key issues included discrepancies in witness testimonies, the admissibility of evidence such as the First Information Report and sketch map, and the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the appellants' reliance on Exhibit 11 in cross-examining a witness constituted an acknowledgment of the document's contents, precluding them from objecting to its admissibility at a later stage. The court also highlighted the prosecution's successful establishment of the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, canceled the bail granted to the appellants, and ordered them to surrender to serve the remainder of their sentences.
JUDGMENT
Debangsu Basak, J. - Four appeals have been heard analogously as they emanate out of one judgement of conviction and order of sentence.
2. The appellants have assailed the judgement of conviction dated January 22, 2020 and the order of sentence dated January 24, 2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, First Court, Asansol in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 50/2006 convicting the appellant under Section 302/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution had approached the Trial Court claiming that the appellants on or about May 9, 2002 at about 7:00 hours at the house of Anil Kumar Roy situated at Saheb Bandh Para Police Station, Raniganj District, Burdwan entered into criminal conspiracy to assault Aparna Sarkar and her minor daughter Susmita Sarkar to murder Aparna Sarkar and Susmita Sarkar. The appellants had murdered Aparna Sarkar and Susmita Sarkar. The appellants had caused evidence of such offence to disappear.
4. Anil Kumar Roy since deceased had lodged a complaint with the police station on May 9, 2002 which was reduced in writing by a sub-Inspector of Police. The complaint of Anil Kumar Roy was registered as First Information Report being Raniganj Police Case No. 70/02 dated May 9, 2002. Anil Kumar Roy had stated in his complaint that his youngest daughter Aparna Sarkar and his grand daughter being the daughter born to Aparna Sarkar namely, Susmita Sarkar had been murdered. He had stated that out of his five sons, he was residing with three sons namely, Ashim Roy, Amit Roy, Amiya Roy and youngest daughter namely Aparna Sarkar and her daughter Susmita Sarkar at his house. His two sons namely Ashok Roy and Amar Roy were residing separately. His eldest daughter Archana was residing at her matrimonial house.
5. Anil had stated that, his five sons and Archana had entered into a conspiracy with each other. They had raised strong objections to Aparna and her daughter residing with him. On May 1, 2002 at about 10 P.M they had assaulted and abused Aparna and told her that they would kill her. On May 8, 2002 at about 10 P.M, his eldest daughter Archana and her husband Ratan Roy came to Raniganj and entered into criminal conspiracy with Ashok, Amar, Ashim, Amit and Amiya attacked Aparna and brutally assaulted her and abused her. Aparna had informed about the incident to the police station when the police officer had come to their house and enquired about the incident. With the interference of local people the disputes have been said to be settled for the time being. On May 9, 2002 at about 7 A.M he had found Aparna and her daughter lying dead in the kitchen. Police of Raniganj Police Station had come to the house when they saw his daughter Aparna Sarkar and granddaughter Susmita Sarkar lying dead. He had stated in his police complaint that, he apprehended that his sons, daughter and son-in-law in order to take possession of his house murdered his youngest daughter and granddaughter, caused disappearance of the evidence and fled away.
6. On the basis of the First Information Report, the police had commenced investigations. Police had submitted charge sheet on December 3, 2002 against six accused persons under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On February 12, 2003 the Court had taken cognizance of the offence against the accuseds under Sections 302/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case had thereafter been committed for trial. Charges had been framed against six accused persons under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on May 02, 2007. The contents of the charge had been read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty of offence and claimed to be tried.
7. During trial, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses. The prosecution tendered documents being Exhibit 1 to 13. The accused persons have been examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code where they pleaded their in
