IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.
Samaresh Biswas - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2020
Decided On : 30-11-2022
Indian Penal Code - Conviction - Section 302 - The court convicted the accused for causing death of the victim by setting her on fire. The prosecution relied on contradictory dying declarations and the testimony of witnesses. The court found serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution's story and the evidence adduced. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was released from custody.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, the wife of the de facto complainant, was set ablaze by the accused Samaresh Kirtonia in her house. She sustained severe burn injuries and eventually died. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered the victim's room, assaulted her, poured kerosene oil, and set her on fire. The husband of the victim was informed of the incident the next day and reported that the victim was set ablaze by the accused. The accused was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution's story and the evidence adduced. The victim's dying declarations were contradictory, and the testimony of witnesses did not provide consistent support for the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the evidence did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the dying declarations and the testimony of witnesses. The delay in lodging the First Information Report and the lack of corroboration for the prosecution's version raised doubts about the veracity of the case against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that in cases of doubt, the proposition in favor of the accused should be accepted, and the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt. The court found that the evidence did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the release of the appellant from custody. The lower court records were to be sent to the trial court for necessary action.
JUDGMENT
Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2020 and consequential order of sentence dated 26.02.2020 passed by learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. XI (II) of 2018 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 27 (02) of 2018 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The victim i.e. the wife of the de facto complainant used to reside alone and developed a relationship with the accused Samaresh Kirtonia. Owing to his employment, the de facto complainant then, used to reside outside.
3. On 08/11/2017 at about 11 pm, the accused entered into the house of the victim and had an altercation with her. Hearing the shouting, the elder brother of the de facto complainant rushed to the room of the victim and saw her blazing. Samaresh then fled away. The victim was taken to Krishnaganj hospital for her treatment and she was referred to Saktinagar hospital and thereafter, she was further referred to Kalyani Jahar Lal Nehru Hospital in a precarious condition. The victim is said to have narrated the incident to the de facto complainant in course of her treatment and is said to have reported that she was set ablaze by accused Samaresh with an intention to kill her. Being informed by his elder brother of the de facto complainant came back and lodged the written complaint with Krishnaganj police.
4. On the basis of such written complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, Krishnaganj P.S. Case No.370 dated 11.11.2017 under section 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the convict Samaresh Kirtonia.
5. The police took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge sheet against the convict under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Pursuant to the compliance of the provisions under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case, having been committed to Court of Sessions, charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed to which the convict pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The convict stood trial.
7. In course of trial, prosecution altogether adduced as many as 24 witnesses. In addition, prosecution also adduced documentary evidences as well.
8. The appellant was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where he pleaded innocence. No defense witness was adduced by the appellant.
9. PW1 is the de facto complainant. He has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 08/11/2017, he was at Pune and came down the next day. He attended his wife at JNM Hospital, Kalyani. He came to know from Puja that on the date of incident, accused Samaresh came to his house in his absence, assaulted her, poured kerosene oil over her body and set her on fire. He further stated that his mother, elder brother and his wife used to reside in the same house but in separate rooms. He also came to know about the incident from his elder brother Rabindranath Kirtonia. Subsequently, he lodged a written complaint with the police and proved his signature thereon (Ext.1/1). He further stated that his wife died after 10 days of the incident at JNM Hospital, Kalyani. He also proved his signature on the report prepared over the dead body (Ext.2/1).
10. In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that when he came from Pune, he visited his wife in the hospital and found her in precarious condition and on that very day, he lodged the written complaint. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had no good relations and visiting terms with the accused.
11. The elder brother of de facto complainant, Rabindranath Kirtonia deposed as PW2. He stated that he along with his wife and son went to bed at 7.30 pm. While asleep, he heard hue and cry. Coming out, he saw his brother's wife Puja ablaze in the courtyard and the accused Samaresh fleeing away. PW2 poured water to douse the fire, thereafter she was lying down on the ground and then PW2 took her to Krishnaganj hospital for treatment. PW2 also recorded his stat
Dalbir Singh v State of UP (2004) 5 SCC 334
Gulam Hussain v State of Delhi
Kashi Vishwanath vs State of Karnataka (2013)3 SCC (Cri) 257
In cases of doubt, the proposition in favor of the accused should be accepted, and the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it meets the criteria of truthfulness, voluntariness, and absence of suspicion, as established by the Indian Evidence Act and relevan....
Dying declarations can serve as sole basis for conviction if deemed reliable, conscious, and voluntary.
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if they are consistent and credible; however, inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to reasonable doubt and acquitt....
The court established that inconsistent dying declarations can undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating a careful evaluation of their credibility.
The dying declaration of the deceased, supported by medical evidence and circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient to establish guilt under Section 302 of IPC.
Dying declarations can be the basis for conviction if they are found to be truthful and voluntary; however, they must be carefully scrutinized, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence.
The judgment establishes the importance of dying declarations and the application of appropriate sections of the IPC based on the circumstances and intention of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.