Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Basudeb Rajbonshi @ Basu - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA. No. 205 of 2021
Decided On : 09-02-2023
For the Appellant:Sandipan Ganguly, Ld. Sr. Advocate, Dipanjan Dutt, Surojit Saha, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Swapan Banerjee, Suman De, Advocates.
The guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant being seen leaving the victim's house on the date of her death, the recovery of stolen articles belonging to the victim from the appellant's house, and the appellant's attempt to sell the stolen articles.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302/450/379/411 IPC - MURDER - HOUSE TRESPASS - THEFT - DISHONEST RETENTION OF STOLEN PROPERTY - FACT OF THE CASE: The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the victim, house trespass, theft, and dishonest retention of stolen property. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant being seen leaving the victim's house on the date of her death, the recovery of stolen articles belonging to the victim from the appellant's house, and the appellant's attempt to sell the stolen articles to various jewelry shops. The appellant denied the charges and claimed false implication. FINDING OF THE COURT: The Court found that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court relied on the testimony of witnesses who saw the appellant leaving the victim's house, the recovery of stolen articles from the appellant's house, and the appellant's attempt to sell the stolen articles. The Court also noted that the appellant had been seen in the area of the victim's house on the date of the murder and that he had a motive to kill the victim in order to steal her jewelry. ISSUES: (1) Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; (2) Whether the appellant's conviction was based on legally admissible evidence; (3) Whether the appellant's sentence was appropriate. RATIO DECIDENDI: The Court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the following factors: (1) the testimony of witnesses who saw the appellant leaving the victim's house; (2) the recovery of stolen articles from the appellant's house; (3) the appellant's attempt to sell the stolen articles; (4) the appellant's presence in the area of the victim's house on the date of the murder; and (5) the appellant's motive to kill the victim. The Court also held that the appellant's conviction was based on legally admissible evidence and that the appellant's sentence was appropriate. FINAL DECISION: The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the victim, house trespass, theft, and dishonest retention of stolen property. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant being seen leaving the victim's house on the date of her death, the recovery of stolen articles belonging to the victim from the appellant's house, and the appellant's attempt to sell the stolen articles to various jewelry shops. The appellant denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court relied on the testimony of witnesses who saw the appellant leaving the victim's house, the recovery of stolen articles from the appellant's house, and the appellant's attempt to sell the stolen articles. The Court also noted that the appellant had been seen in the area of the victim's house on the date of the murder and that he had a motive to kill the victim in order to steal her jewelry.
Issues: (1) Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; (2) Whether the appellant's conviction was based on legally admissible evidence; (3) Whether the appellant's sentence was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the following factors: (1) the testimony of witnesses who saw the appellant leaving the victim's house; (2) the recovery of stolen articles from the appellant's house; (3) the appellant's attempt to sell the stolen articles; (4) the appellant's presence in the area of the victim's house on the date of the murder; and (5) the appellant's motive to kill the victim. The Court also held that the appellant's conviction was based on legally admissible evidence and that the appellant's sentence was appropriate.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.
JUDGMENT
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgement of conviction dated February 22, 2021 and the order of sentence dated February 23, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Second Court, Purba Bardhaman in Sessions Trial No. 10 (06)/2018 arising out of Sessions Case No. 222 of 2018.
2. By the impugned judgement of conviction, the learned trial judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 302/450/379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the case of the prosecution against the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. He has contended that, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is on the basis of the appellant being allegedly seen leaving the house of the victim on the date of the death.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that, the testimony of prosecution witnesses who claimed that the appellant was seen to exit the house of the victim cannot be relied upon. He has highlighted the discrepancies in the versions of PW 8 and PW 14. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of PW 2 in this regard.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that, the list of jewellery recovered belonging to the victim, at the instance of the appellant was also suspected. In this connection, he had relied upon the deposition of PW 3 and PW 12. The claim that the appellant had been to the jeweller for disposal of the jewellery articles was also misplaced. He had drawn the attention of the Court to the deposition of PW 17 in this regard.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the motive for the crime suggested on behalf of the prosecution was not plausible. The theory that, the victim was murdered in order to steal the jewellery did not have substance. The jewellery allegedly stolen were not of much value.
7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the prosecution collected hair and blood samples. It had been claimed by the prosecution that, the victim had struggled and resisted the assailant as a result where of which the victim had clutched strands of the hair of the assailant in hand. Samples thereof had been collected and sent to forensic examination. However, the report of such forensic examination although available, was not tendered in evidence at the trial.
8. In support of his contentions, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon 2008 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 210 (Sattatiya versus State of Maharashtra), 2006 Volume 10 Supreme Court Cases 681 (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan versus State of Maharashtra) and 2015 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 178 (Tomaso Bruno versus State of UP).
9. Learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted that, the First Information Report was lodged on the date of the incident itself and therefore there was no chance of false implication. The post-mortem report of the victim had been tendered in evidence and
