Minati Halder vs State Of West Bengal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 43

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.
Minati Halder & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 9, 102, 232, 242, 246, 285 of 2020, 373 of 2021, (IA No. CRAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CRAN 3107 of 2020))
Decided On : 01-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Souvik Mitter, Advocate, Amrita Maji, Advocate, Rajnandini Das, Advocate, Milon Mukherjee, Advocate, Biswajit Manna, Advocate, Somnath Ghoshal, Advocate, Anupama Chakraborty, Advocate, Sahid Uddin, Advocate, Anasuya Sinha, Advocate, Avishek Sinha, Advocate, Jonaki Saha, Advocate

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CONVICTION - APPEAL - SECTION 302, 307, 326, 341, 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 65B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - ADMISSIBILITY OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDING - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - INJURED EYEWITNESSES - ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE - SECTION 164 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 161 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - EYEWITNESSES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - BURDEN OF PROOF - REASONABLE DOUBT - ACCOMPLICES - LIABILITY - COMMON INTENTION - MOTIVE - PREMEDITATION - GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION - SELF-DEFENCE - ACCIDENT - INSANITY - INTOXICATION - DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY - PROVOCATION - SUDDEN FIGHT - HEAT OF PASSION - GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION - EXTREME INTOXICATION - VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION - INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION - MISTAKE OF FACT - MISTAKE OF LAW - IGNORANCE OF LAW - DURESS - NECESSITY - JUSTIFICATION - EXCUSE - DEFENCES - MITIGATING FACTORS - AGGRAVATING FACTORS - SENTENCING - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - APPELLATE JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF REVIEW - INTERFERENCE WITH TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS - STANDARD OF REVIEW - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - DEATH SENTENCE - REVIEW OF DEATH SENTENCE - COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCE - LIFE IMPRISONMENT - REMISSION OF SENTENCE - PARDON - REPRIEVE - EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY - JUDICIAL CLEMENCY - RETRIAL - NEW TRIAL - SECOND APPEAL - REVISION - HABEAS CORPUS - MANDAMUS - CERTIORARI - PROHIBITION - QUO WARRANTO - CONTEMPT OF COURT - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - CIVIL CONTEMPT - JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - EXTRADITION - INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION - MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE - TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS - CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION - JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICTS - JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES - JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES - JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS - JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS - JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS - LACK OF JURISDICTION - EXCESS OF JURISDICTION - ABUSE OF JURISDICTION - ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION - OUSTER OF JURISDICTION - WAIVER OF JURISDICTION - SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION - ACQUIESCENCE - ESTOPPEL - LACHES - DELAY - PREJUDICE - IRREGULARITIES - DEFECTS - ERRORS - MISTAKES - OMISSIONS - PROCEDURAL DEFECTS - SUBSTANTIVE DEFECTS - FATAL DEFECTS - CURE OF DEFECTS - WAIVER OF DEFECTS - OBJECTIONS - TIMELINESS OF OBJECTIONS - PRESERVATION OF OBJECTIONS - RAISING OF OBJECTIONS - FAILURE TO RAISE OBJECTIONS - LACK OF STANDING - STANDING TO SUE - RIGHT TO BE HEARD - FAIR HEARING - DUE PROCESS - NATURAL JUSTICE - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - HUMAN RIGHTS - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS - RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL - RIGHT TO COUNSEL - RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT - RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION - RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES - RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES - RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE - RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES - RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS - RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL - RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL - RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL - RIGHT TO BAIL - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM EXCESSIVE BAIL - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM DOUBLE JEOPARDY - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM BILLS OF ATTAINDER - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM VAGUE LAWS - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM OVERBROAD LAWS - RIGHT TO PRIVACY - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNLAWFUL ARREST - RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNLAWFUL DETENTION - RIGHT TO HABEAS CORPUS - RIGHT TO MANDAMUS - RIGHT TO CERTIORARI - RIGHT TO PROHIBITION - RIGHT TO QUO WARRANTO - RIGHT TO CONTEMPT - RIGHT TO A REMEDY - REMEDIES - CIVIL REMEDIES - CRIMINAL REMEDIES - EQUITABLE REMEDIES - LEGAL REMEDIES - EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES - ANCILLARY REMEDIES - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - DECLARATORY RELIEF - DAMAGES - COMPENSATION - RESTITUTION - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - INJUNCTION - MANDAMUS - CERTIORARI - PROHIBITION - QUO WARRANTO - CONTEMPT - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - CIVIL CONTEMPT - BURDEN OF PROOF - STANDARD OF PROOF - PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE - CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE - BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES - INSANITY - SELF-DEFENSE - INTOXICATION - DURESS - NECESSITY - MISTAKE OF FACT - MISTAKE OF LAW - ENTRAPMENT - JUSTIFICATION - EXCUSE - MITIGATING FACTORS - AGGRAVATING FACTORS - SENTENCING - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - APPELLATE JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF REVIEW - INTERFERENCE WITH TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS - STANDARD OF REVIEW - APPEAL - NEW TRIAL - RETRIAL - SECOND APPEAL - REVISION - HABEAS CORPUS - MANDAMUS - CERTIORARI - PROHIBITION - QUO WARRANTO - CONTEMPT - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - CIVIL CONTEMPT
Fact of the Case:

In a case involving the murder of two individuals, the prosecution relied on the testimony of three injured eyewitnesses, two eyewitnesses to the incident, photographs, and video recordings to establish the guilt of the accused. The accused challenged the admissibility of the electronic evidence, arguing that the prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which rendered the electronic evidence inadmissible. The court further held that the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the electronic evidence was admissible. 2. Whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the electronic evidence was inadmissible because the prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which required the production of a certificate identifying the electronic record, describing the manner in which it was produced, furnishing the particulars of the device involved in its production, dealing with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act, and signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. 2. The court further held that the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt because the injured eyewitnesses and the eyewitnesses to the incident had failed to identify the accused in court or ascribe any role to them.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in respect of the appellants who had been identified by the injured eyewitnesses and the eyewitnesses to the incident, and acquitted them of the charges they were charged with. The court upheld the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in respect of the appellants who had not been identified by the injured eyewitnesses or the eyewitnesses to the incident.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - Seven appeals have been heard analogously as they emanated out of the same police case.

2. Police had registered a First Information Report on January 20, 2019 on the basis of a written complaint of PW 1 of the same date. In his written complaint, PW 1 had alleged that on January 20, 2019 at around 7 AM his father and four other villagers had gone to Kalna to spray insecticide. At around 9 AM when such persons were returning home, at Baruipara, a few persons had detained them out of suspicion. Those persons had requested many others of the locality to come armed with sharp weapons, Iron rod and chopper. On being instigated, they had assaulted his father and the co-villagers. On being assaulted, his father had sustained severe injuries. Thinking that his father had succumbed, the miscreants had left the place of occurrence. When PW 1 had learnt about the assault, he took his father to the Kalna Hospital where he received preliminary treatment. Thereafter, his father was referred to the Burdwan Hospital where he had succumbed to his injuries. PW 1 had come to learn from the local people that his father had been murdered by a sharp weapon and that the companions of his father were injured by iron rod. PW 1 had named 8 persons along with other unnamed persons as the assailants.

3. On completion of the investigation, police had submitted a charge sheet. The Court had framed charges against 19 persons under Sections 341/326/307/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on August 22, 2017.

4. On the accused persons pleading not guilty, they had been tried. At the trial, the prosecution had relied upon 57 witnesses, documentary and material evidences to bring home the charges as against the accused persons.

5. By the impugned judgement of conviction dated October 2019, the learned trial judge had found 7 of the 19 accused persons as not guilty 12 of the accused persons had been found as guilty under Sections 341/326/307/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned trial judge had by the impugned order of sentence dated November 11, 2019 sentenced 12 of the accused persons. They had been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another 15 days each for commission of offence punishable under Section 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another 6 months each for commission of offence punishable under Section 326/149 of the Indian penal code, 1860; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another 6 months each for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860; to suffer rigourous imprisonment each for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another one year each for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the direction that all the sentences would run concurrently in the period of conviction already undergone to be set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The 12 convicted persons have preferred 7 appeals which have been heard analogously as noted above. 4 sets of advocates have appeared for the 12 convicted persons in the 7 appeals. We have heard all the appellants through their learned advocates. It would be convenient to deal with the 7 appeals in 4 sets as the 4 sets of learned advocates have assisted the Court on the 7 appeals.

7. Mr. Souvik Mitter, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants in CRA No. 9 of 2020 and CRA No. 285 of 2020 has submitted that, although the de facto complainant had stated in the written complaint that the accused had been involved in the incident, the prosecution did not produce any evidence to corroborate t