Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Bibhas Ranjan De, JJ.
Tarun Santra Alias Tore - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 60 of 2020 With CRAN 3 of 2021
Decided On : 11-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Adv, Mr. Avik Ghatak, Adv, Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati, Adv. Mr. S. S. Saha, Adv, for the Appellant; Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. APP, Mr. Bibasan Bhattacharya, Adv, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in a murder case, including motive, place of occurrence, recovery of the weapon, and the presence of the accused at the scene.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302/201 - Arms Act - Section 27(1) - [Section 302/201, 27(1)] - The court found the appellant guilty of offences under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 27(1) of the Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The case involved the murder of the victim by gunshot injuries and the recovery of the firearm used in the murder. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant, including motive, place of occurrence, recovery of the weapon, and the presence of the appellant at the scene. The appellant contested the prosecution's evidence, claiming failure to prove the cause of death, motive, place of occurrence, and his presence at the scene. The court analyzed the evidence and found the appellant guilty, concluding that the evidence was incompatible with his innocence.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the victim by gunshot injuries. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including motive, place of occurrence, recovery of the weapon, and the presence of the appellant at the scene. The appellant contested the evidence, claiming failure to prove the cause of death, motive, place of occurrence, and his presence at the scene.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, concluding that the evidence was incompatible with the appellant's innocence.
Issues: The issues involved the establishment of the cause of death, motive, place of occurrence, and the appellant's presence at the scene, based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including motive, place of occurrence, recovery of the weapon, and the presence of the appellant at the scene, to establish the appellant's guilt.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dismissing the appeal and affirming the appellant's guilt.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction dated December 19, 2019 and the order of sentence dated December 20, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 01(02) of 2016 arising out of Sessions Case No. 09 (11) of 2015.

2. By the impugned order of conviction, the appellant has been found guilty of offences under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 27(1) of the Arms Act. The appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the impugned order of sentence dated December 20, 2019.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the father of the victim had lodged a written complaint dated November 10, 2012 which had been registered as Budge Budge Police Station Case No. 352/12 dated November 10, 2012 under Section 498A/ 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the prosecution, the appellant had murdered the victim on November 9, 2012. The victim had succumbed to gunshot injuries. The fire arm had been recovered on the leading statement made by the appellant. The post mortem report of the victim had confirmed the death of the victim by reason of the gunshot injury suffered.

4. The police case had been committed for trial where, charges were framed against three accused including the appellant. The three accused including the appellant have been charged with, physical and mental torturing the deceased and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and murdering the deceased and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and in furtherance of the common intention about the knowledge of the murder, caused evidence of the offence to disappear and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. At the trial, the prosecution had examined 22 witnesses. The prosecution had relied upon various documents which have been marked as Exhibit. The prosecution had also relied upon material exhibits. The appellant had been examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on August 14, 2019 by the Learned Trial Judge.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of the written complaint dated November 10, 2012 being exhibit 1. He has submitted that, the written complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim who was examined as prosecution witness No. 1. The written complaint being exhibit 1 does not contain any allegations with regard to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as against the appellant or any of the accused. He has submitted that, the appellant had been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, Inquest Report of the deceased had been prepared on November 10, 2012 by a sub-inspector of police who was examined as prosecution witness No. 18. In such Inquest Report, the prosecution witnesses No. 1 and 4 had signed on the same. That apart, another person namely Chironjit Ghorui had signed such Inquest Report. However, Chironjit Ghorui had not been tendered as a prosecution witness at the trial.

8. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the Inquest Report being exhibit 9 He has submitted that, the Inquest Report states that there were injuries on the body of the deceased and that there were two holes on her fact and below both ears. The Inquest Report did not mention of any kind of bullet injury being sustained by the deceased. He has contrasted the Inquest Report with the post mortem report being exhibit 7. He has submitted that the gunshot injury appearing in the post mortem report being exh