IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.
Monika Bagchi - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA DB 46 of 2022 & CRA DB 67 of 2022 & CRA DB 73 of 2022 & CRA DB 81 of 2022
Decided On : 21-09-2022
JUVENILE JUSTICE - CRIMINAL LAW - Indian Penal Code, section 364A, 302, 120B, 201, 354A - The court found the appellants guilty and convicted them of the offences punishable under sections 354A/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal code. The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for various terms and to pay fines. The prosecution's case was twofold, first, the victim boy went missing and an alleged ransom call was received, and second, the dead body of the victim boy was recovered after 3 days in a decomposed condition with wire yarned around the neck. The appellants challenged their conviction primarily on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove their presence and involvement at the scene of the crime and that their conviction was based on an extra judicial confession which was not creditworthy and not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court found material contradictions in the testimonial account of the confession by the prosecution witnesses and that the confession was not voluntary. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of alleged disputes and that the call detail report was not collected in accordance with established law. The court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and set aside the judgment of conviction and subsequent order of sentence.
JUDGMENT
Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. - All these appeals are taken up for disposal by a common judgment, as they emanate from a common Judgment of conviction and consequential order of sentence passed on 31.01.2022 and 01.02.2022 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranaghat, Nadia, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 03 (04) of 2015, arising out of, Sessions Case No. 16 (11) of 2014.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.08.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. son of the de-facto complainant namely, Rajat Biswas aged about 8 years, went out of his house for playing. When the brother of the de-facto complainant, namely, Gobinda Biswas, came back from office and called upon his nephew Rajat Biswas at about 5.30 p.m. but he could not be found. At about 7.00 p.m. a phone call was received in the mobile phone of another brother of de-facto complainant, namely Bijan Biswas from an unknown mobile bearing number 7029082410. The caller asked for a ransom of Rs. 10,000/- for returning the son of de-facto complainant. There was a search organized for Rajat but he could not be found.
3. Accordingly, Milan Biswas, the father of the missing boy lodged a written complaint with Hanskhali Police Station at 20.35 hrs. over missing of Rajat Biswas. On the basis of such written complaint, Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 477 of 2014 dated 04.08.2014 under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code was started against unknown miscreants having mobile number 7029082410 and the police took up investigation of the case.
4. Subsequently, on 07.08.2014 the dead body of the victim boy Rajat Biswas was discovered by the complainant party from near the 'Southern Bil' at Garapota, Kalatala Bazar in a decomposed condition. The police moved in and conducted inquest on the dead body and started Hanskhali P.S. U/D Case No. 41 date 07.08.2014. Thereafter, the body was removed for post mortem examination to Saktinagar Hospital Police Morgue. In course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of available witnesses and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against 5 accused persons including a juvenile under section 364A/302/120B of Indian Penal Code. Later on the police further submitted a supplementary charge sheet against another juvenile Akash Bhakta under section 364A/302/120B/201 of the Indian penal Code.
5. Upon appearance/production of the accused persons and after observing compliance of the provision contained in section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The two juvenile accused persons were sent to Juvenile Justice Board for their trial in accordance with Juvenile Justice Act.
6. On the basis of materials in the Case Diary and upon hearing the accused persons i.e. the present appellants in all the four appeals, charges under section 364A/302/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the four appellants/accused persons namely 1) Sanjoy Das, 2) Chaitali Pal, 3) Hardas Biswas and 4) Monika Bagchi. Charges were duly read over and explained to the aforesaid accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charged offences.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all.
8. Upon conclusion of trial, in consideration of the evidence on record and examining the accused persons under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the appellants namely, 1) Haridas Biswas, 2) Sanjoy Das, 3)Chaitali Pal and 4)Monika Bagchi, were found guilty and were convicted of the offences punishable under sections 354A/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal code by the impugned judgment. Consequently, by the impugned order, accused Haridas was sentenced to undergo Rigorous life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment 2 years. The other three accused persons were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pa
Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P. [2006 (10) SCC 172]
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Conviction based solely on confessions of co-accused is insufficient; prosecution must provide corroborating evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
The court held that mere suspicion is insufficient for a conviction; a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.