Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Bivas Pattanayak, JJ.
Alok Das @ Bablu Das - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. 267 of 2015
Decided On : 03-03-2022
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, Adv, Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv, Mr. Debangan Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Swarnali Saha, Adv, Mr. Rajdeep Sinha, Adv, for the Appellant; Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. A.P.P, Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya, Adv, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of a sole eyewitness and the requirement for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, emphasizing the importance of promptly examining vulnerable witnesses.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - The court analyzed the evidence and found the sole eyewitness to be reliable, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was initiated based on a written complaint lodged by the son of the deceased, alleging that the appellant had assaulted and caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution presented evidence from various witnesses, including the sole eyewitness, and the post-mortem doctor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the sole eyewitness to be reliable and his deposition to be substantially corroborated by other circumstances, including medical evidence. The court also noted the lackadaisical manner in which the witness was examined, giving ample opportunity to the accused to influence him. Despite various efforts and subterfuge by the defense, the witness's deposition was ultimately recorded and found to be truthful and corroborated by other materials on record.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the sole eyewitness and the corroboration of his testimony with other evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of promptly examining vulnerable witnesses and the need for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. The court also highlighted the natural behavior of the witness in the context of the background of the parties involved.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, dismissing the appeal and ordering the period of detention suffered by the appellant to be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him.
JUDGMENT
Joymalya Bagchi, J. - Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2015 and 10th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Mednipur in Sessions Case No. 90(10)/2004 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 3(06)/2006 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.
2. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant was initiated on the basis of a written complaint lodged by one Sukhdev Khatua (P.W.1), son of the deceased namely, Durgapada Khatua. In the complaint he alleged on 15.11.1999 at about 6.30 a.m. his neighbour Srimanta Patra informed him he noticed a dead body beside the road at Baburhat bazaar.
3. P.W. 1 was called upon to ascertain whether the body as that of his father or not. He proceeded to the spot and identified the body as that of his father. There was a deep cut injury on the throat and several injury marks on the head caused by a sharp cutting weapon. A suitcase and two jute bags were lying on the opposite side of the road and some of the clothes therein did not belong to his father. His father used to commit theft in various houses. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, Mahishadal Police Station case No. 76 of 1999 dated 15.11.1999 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against unknown persons. In course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body and post mortem was conducted by P.W. 14. During investigation various witnesses including one Srikanta Jana (P.W. 9) were examined. Statement of Srikanta was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also. As complicity of the appellant transpired through the aforesaid statement, he was arrested. On his showing, weapon of offence was recovered.
4. Charge-sheet was filed against him and charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C.. In course of trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.
5. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by impugned judgment and order 9th April, 2015 and 10th April, 2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
6. Evidence on Record:-
7. P.W. 1 (Sukdev Khatua) is the son of the deceased and the informant in the case. He was informed by his neighbours that his father was lying dead on the northern side of pitch road at the end of Baburhat Bazar. He went there and saw the dead body of his father with serious blood stained injuries on his head. One of the slippers of his father was lying beside the dead body. His father was a thief and had association with the appellant in connection with such nefarious activities. Appellant used to come to their residence once in a while. There were disputes and differences between his father and the appellant over sharing stolen articles. A year ago, appellant had assaulted his father on the head. He filed written complaint and proved his signature thereon. He signed on the inquest report.
8. P.W. 2 (Subhra Das) is the Gram Pradhan of Lakhya-I Gram Panchyat. She corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 that the dead body of Durgapada was lying on the road and his slippers were lying beside him.
9. There was a bag containing clothes, torch light and an attache case. Police came to the spot. She signed on the inquest report. She was also a signatory to the articles seized at the place of occurrence. She corroborated P.W.1 with regard to enmity between the appellant and the deceased. She stated that appellant had earlier assaulted the deceased.
10. P.W. 3 (Biswanath Jana) P.W. 7 (Kartick Chandra Khatua) and P.W. 8 (Narayan Maity) all resided in the same village as P.W. 1. They were acquainted to P.W. 1 and his father Durgapada. Hearing the news, they came to the place of occurrence a
