Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Sabina Sabnam @ Rumi - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 547, 666 of 2012
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 302/120B/201 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants for the commission of the offense punishable under sections 302/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, inquest reports, and medical evidence, to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case revolved around the discovery of a dead body inside a car and the subsequent arrest and trial of the appellants for the murder. The key witness, P.W. 7, provided detailed testimony about the sequence of events leading to the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of P.W. 7 to be reliable and corroborated by other witnesses and evidence, leading to the conviction of the appellants for the murder.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the identification of the appellants, the location of the dead body, and the absence of a clear motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness testimonies, the corroboration of evidence, and the medical findings to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants, dismissing their appeals and ordering the cancellation of bail bonds for one of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
Joymalya Bagchi, J. - Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 28.08.2012 and 29.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 19/2011 arising out of Sessions Case No. 85/2011 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under sections 302/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution case against the appellants runs as follows:-
On 10.02.2011 at 10:45 p.m. a telephonic information was received at Memari Police Station that a dead body was found inside a Tata Sumo, (Spacio car) bearing No. WB-26C-8692 (hereinafter referred to as 'the car'). The information was diarized by A.S.I. Bhola Nath Mal (P.W. 2). P.W. 1 Seo Kumar Sing attached to Palsit Outpost also received similar information over telephone. He proceeded to the spot with P.W. 3 Constable Champak Das. Arriving at Rasulpur Rail Gate, they saw the car stranded near the rail gate. They found a dead body inside the car. They also found Wahid Ali (1st appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2012) sitting in the car. On interrogation Wahid stated he along with Sabina Sabnam @ Rumi and Selima Khatun had murdered the person.
3. P.W. 1 Seo Kumar Sing lodged written complaint at Memari Police Station resulting in registration of Memari Police Station Case No. 36/11 dated 11.02.2011 under sections 302/201/120B I.P.C. against the appellants.
4. P.W. 25 Pranab Kumar Banerjee was entrusted with the investigation. He proceeded to the spot. He found the car. He saw Wahid Ali sitting in the car. On interrogation Wahid stated that he along with his associates Sabina Sabnam @ Rumi and Selima Khatun had murdered the victim. He held inquest over the body of the deceased. The car and other documents were seized. In the meantime, owner of the vehicle Upananda Koley (P.W. 21) and the driver Palash Mondal (P.W.7) came to the spot. Palash made statement before P.W. 25. Thereafter, P.W. 25 went to the residence of Sabina Sabnam @ Rumi and arrested her and Selima Khatun. Mobile phones were seized from their possession. P.W. 7 identified Sabnam and Selima in the course of test identification parade. On the leading statement of Wahid Ali, handkerchief used to throttle the victim was recovered.
5. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. Charges were framed under sections 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 25 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.
7. In conclusion of trial, trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2012 and 29.08.2012 convicted the appellants, as aforesaid.
8. P.W. 1 Seo Kumar Sing and P.W. 3, Champak Das are police officers attached to Palsit Outpost under Memari Police Station. On receiving telephonic information they had proceeded to Rasulpur Rail Gate. They found a car stranded. A dead body was lying below the middle seat. They also found Wahid Ali sitting in the vehicle. Wahid stated he and other appellants committed the murder. P.W. 1 lodged written complaint which was received by P.W. 24, Sanjib Ghosh attached to Memari Police Station. P.W. 2, Bhola Nath Mal attached to Memari Police Station proved the telephonic communication that a dead body was found in the car which was diarized as G.D. Entry No. 617 dated 10.02.2011 (Exhibit 4).
9. P.W. 4 Sk. Jianul Islam is the owner of the shop near Rasulpur Rail Gate. P.W. 5 Ruidas Barui is a vegetable vendor near the rail gate. P.W. 6 Amit Sarkar has his residence near the rail gate. All the witnesses corroborated the police witnesses with regard to the recovery of the dead body from the car stranded near the rail gate. They also stated a man was inside the car. They were unable to identify the said person as they had seen him only once for a short time.
10. P.W. 7 Palash Mondal is the star witness. He is the driver of the car. He deposed in the mo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimonies, corroborated evidence, and medical findings to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reaffirming that these elements exclude other hypotheses.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to justify a conviction.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
Once prosecution has brought home evidence of presence of accused at scene of crime, then onus stood shifted on defence to explain as to what had brought them to place of occurrence.
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
