Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHITTA RANJAN DASH, PARTHA SARATHI SEN, JJ.
Sukumar Sarkar - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. No. 608 of 2005
Decided On : 10-02-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES - CORROBORATION - INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTOR - SECTION 304 PART 1 IPC - SENTENCE MODIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant assaulted his wife with a hammer, causing her death. The appellant denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the children of the appellant and the victim, was corroborative and established that the appellant was present with the victim at the time of the incident. The court also found that the injuries sustained by the victim were consistent with being caused by a hammer.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant had the intention or knowledge to cause the death of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of the children of the appellant and the victim, who were present at the time of the incident, as well as the evidence of the doctors who treated the victim. 2. The court held that the appellant did not have the intention or knowledge to cause the death of the victim. The court found that the injuries sustained by the victim were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the appellant did not intend to cause the victim's death.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the conviction of the appellant to one under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and confining the sentence to the period the appellant had already undergone.
JUDGMENT
Partha Sarathi Sen, J.
1. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 25th November, 2004, as passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Durgapur in Sessions Trial No.23 of 2004 arising out of Sessions Case No.96 of 2003. By the impugned judgment learned trial court found the present appellant Sukumar Sarkar guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thus sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer further R.I for six months. The convict felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant application.
2. According to the prosecution one Kanai Lal Sarkar, son of Late Chuni Lal Sarkar of Village Beraberia Govt. Colony, P.S Amdanga, District North-24-Parganas lodged a written complaint with the New Township Police Station, Durgapur, District Burdwan stating, inter alia, that marriage of his youngest sister Amala Sarkar was solemnized with one Sukumar Sarkar of Subhas Pally, Durgapur-6 about 25 years back. It was his further version in the said written complaint that on 08.04.2003 at about 4 a.m his said brother-in-law Sukumar Sarkar assaulted his sister Amala by a hammer and on hearing alarm, the children of the deceased and her neighbours rushed to the spot where the victim was found in senseless condition and at that time she was profusely bleeding. According to him the victim was thereafter taken to Bidhannagar Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries on 09.04.2003 at about 1:40 p.m.
3. On the basis of the such written complaint NTS P.S Case No. 28/2003 dated 10.04.2003 was started under Section 304 IPC. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302 IPC. After commitment of the said case, the matter was transferred to the learned trial court for trial and disposal. Lower Court Record reveals that the learned trial court on the day of consideration of the charge after perusing entire materials as available in the case record and in the Case Diary framed charge under Section 302 IPC as against the present appellant. Since the present appellant before the learned trial court pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried, the said trial proceeded.
4. Trial Court Record reveals that for bringing home the charge under Section 302 IPC as against the accused, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in all and several documents have been exhibited on their behalf. Though before the learned trial court the accused have not adduced evidence on his behalf but from the trend of cross examination and the answers as given by the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C it transpires to us that the defence case is based on clear denial and false implication. For effective adjudication of the instant appeal short description of the prosecution witnesses are required to be given and thus are enumerated hereunder.
PW1, PW3 and PW11 are the neighbours of the present appellant as well as of deceased. PW2 and PW4 are the daughter and son of the present appellant and the victim respectively. PW7 is the brother of the deceased and is the de facto complainant while PW8 is another brother of the victim. PW6 is the scribe. PW9 is a doctor of Durgapur Hospital and PW13 is a doctor of State General Hospital, Habra both of whom have treated the victim in their respective hospitals. PW5 is the Autopsy Surgeon who performed Post Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW12 is the Recording Officer and PW14 is the I.O of this case.
5. Ms. Chandreyee Alam, learned amicus curiae in course of her argument draws attention of ours to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is argued by her that since this case is based on circumstantial evidence and since the evidence of the prosecution witnesses do not prove of the incriminating circumstances as against the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the impug
The intention or knowledge of the actor is a crucial factor in determining whether an act falls within the ambit of Section 300 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part 1 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting....
The absence of intent to kill and the nature of injuries led to a modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The judgment established the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, and the factors to be considered for awarding appropriate sentence under IPC 302 or IPC 304 Part-II.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that a single fatal blow with a weapon can constitute murder if intended to cause serious injury, rejecting claims of provocation.
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
