Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sugato Majumdar, J.
Anil Das And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 203 of 2011
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Indian Penal Code - Offence under Section 304 - [Criminal Appeal] - [Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the evidence and found that the conviction of the accused persons under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code was based on circumstantial evidence. However, the court found serious flaws in the findings of the Trial Court, including discrepancies in the Post-Mortem Examination Report and lack of evidence connecting all accused persons to the crime. The court concluded that the impugned Judgment and Order of sentence suffered from serious flaws and misapplication of law, justifying setting aside of the same.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a private tutor, was allegedly blackmailed and extorted by the appellants. He was found to have consumed poison and later died in the hospital. The appellants were convicted under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but the appeal was filed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious flaws in the findings of the Trial Court, including discrepancies in the Post-Mortem Examination Report and lack of evidence connecting all accused persons to the crime. The court concluded that the impugned Judgment and Order of sentence suffered from serious flaws and misapplication of law, justifying setting aside of the same.
Issues: The issues included discrepancies in the evidence, misapplication of law, violation of natural justice, and lack of evidence connecting all accused persons to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order of sentence was based on the serious flaws in the findings of the Trial Court, including discrepancies in the Post-Mortem Examination Report and lack of evidence connecting all accused persons to the crime.
Final Decision: The instant appeal was allowed, and the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence were set aside. The Appellant No. 2 and the Appellant No. 3 were set at liberty and released from their bail bonds.
JUDGMENT
Sugato Majumdar, J. - The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 12/04/2011 and Order of sentence dated 13/04/2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract 1st Court, Alipore, in Sessions Trial No. 01 (10) 2006 whereby the Appellants were convicted of offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The de-facto complainant is the mother of the deceased Subhas Sribastab.
3. The deceased Subhas Sribastab was a private tutor. The Appellant No. 2 Swapan Das was his old friend. The deceased was private tutor of the son of the Appellant No. 2 and 3. A love-affair developed between the Appellant No. 3 and the deceased also it is in the allegation that all the Appellants black-mailed the deceased and extorted lump-sum amount from him. On the fateful day namely 12/01/2004, the deceased Subhas left his residence at 10:30 A.M. for the residence of the Appellants. At about 3:10 P.M., the Appellant No. 2 came to the residence of the de- facto complainant and informed that Subhas consumed poison. He was taken to a doctor's chamber. On hearing this the de-facto complainant rushed to the doctor's chamber where Subhas was found lying on a bench. Thereafter he was taken to S.S.K.M. Hospital where he was admitted as in-patient. After few hours Subhas expired. Hospital report showed that cause of death was poisoning. Because of such unnatural death, the matter was reported to Bhowanipore Police Station and entry was made in the General Diary. It is alleged by the de-facto complainant that the Officer-in-Charge of Rabindra Nagar Police Station refused to register her complaint. Subsequently the matter was brought to the notice of the same police station by aletter sent by registered post on 27/02/2004. On 13/01/2004 the Officer-in-Charge of Bhowanipore Police Station sent a requisition for report of unnatural death to Metiabruz Police Station. Thereafter, Metiabruz Police Station sent all the papers to the Officer-in-Charge, Rabindra Nagar Police Station.
4. Knocking the doors of different authorities in futile, she finally approached Rabindra Nagar Police Station in terms of her written complaint dated 01/03/2005. The case was registered as Rabindra Nagar Police Station Case No. 13 dated 01/03/2005 under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.
5. The Investigating Officer, on being so entrusted with, began investigation, in course of which he examined available witnesses, collected post-mortem examination report, seized treatment papers and hospital bed-head tickets took necessary and incidental steps for conduct of such investigation. On conclusion of the investigation filed charge sheet under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Since the matter was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions Judge from where the matter was transferred to the Trial Court.
7. Charges were framed under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. In course of trial fourteen witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited in evidence, including the written complaint, formal F.I.R., hospital treatment papers, post-mortem report.
9. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Defense of the accused persons was false implication.
10. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonments of seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for another six months.
11. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied the instant appeal is preferred.
12. During pendency of the appeal the Appellant No. 1 expired. So the appeal abated against him.
13. At the outset, Mr. Ganguly appearing for the Appellants submitted that the instant case is a glaring example of aberration of justice. According to Mr. Ganguly, charge was framed for culpable homicide not am
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sound and reliable evidence to support a conviction, and the court's duty to ensure that the principles of evidence and natural....
The essential ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are that:
a) Death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than other normal circumstances.
b) The s....
The court established that the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is justified when intent to kill is not proven, relying on witness credibility and evidential discrepancies.
Criminal liability under Section 34 requires proof of common intention and active participation; conviction found justified for one accused due to credible evidence, while others acquitted for lack o....
In cases of dowry death, where the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and father-in-law for non-fulfillment of their demand for money, and where she was also tortured and harassed soon ....
Conviction under Sections 498A and 304B upheld; evidence establishes unnatural death by poisoning, while sentencing under Section 498A reduced to six months.
To establish liability under Section 304-A IPC, a direct causal link between a negligent act and the death must be proven, which was absent as the death was determined to be suicide.
Point of Law : Deceased and Appellant were both inebriated and the quarrel between them was sudden and heated, it cannot be reasonably said that the Appellant has acted in an unusual manner.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear and consistent evidentiary basis to establish guilt in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for conclusive evidence ....
The judgment established that culpable homicide can be classified as not amounting to murder when committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, as outlined in Excep....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
