Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Sadhin Pal @ Bablu Pal & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. No. 12 of 2013 with C.R.A.N. No. 2 of 2014 (Old C.R.A.N. 4102 of 2014)
Decided On : 17-02-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER and ROBBERY - circumstantial evidence - accused convicted for murder and robbery of deceased - deceased found dead with ligature mark around neck - ear rings and necklace missing - accused seen near place of occurrence - disclosure statement of accused led to recovery of stolen ornaments - presumptive evidence of murder - conviction of one accused upheld - conviction of other accused set aside due to lack of reliable evidence.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased found dead in her garden house with ligature mark around neck and missing ear rings and necklace. Appellants, neighbors of the deceased, were seen near the crime scene and their disclosure statements led to the recovery of stolen ornaments from nearby jewelry shops.
Finding of the Court:
Circumstantial evidence, including presence of appellants near the crime scene, recovery of stolen ornaments pursuant to disclosure statements, and absence of explanation for possession of stolen jewelry, established guilt of one appellant. However, evidence against the other appellant was insufficient, and he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. The recovery of stolen articles soon after a murder, if proved, can create a presumption of guilt. However, the presumption can only be drawn when the murder and robbery appear to have been committed in the course of the same transaction.
Final Decision: Conviction and sentence of one appellant upheld. Conviction and sentence of the other appellant set aside.
JUDGMENT
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2012 and 13.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Durgapur, Bardhaman in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2008 arising out of Sessions Case No. 98 of 2008 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under section 394 I.P.C. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
Prosecution case:-
2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is as follows:-
On 02.03.2008 around 9:00 a.m. one Dharmadasi Mondal (i.e. the deceased) went to her garden house adjoining her residence to collect flowers for puja. As she did not return till 9:30 a.m. Her nephew Dinabandhu (P.W. 1) went to the roof top and found her standing near a banana tree inside the garden house. She waived her hand and indicated to Dinabandhu that she would return shortly. But she did not return till 10:00 a.m. He went out to search for her. Parulbala Mondal (P.W. 10), sister-in-law of the deceased also joined the search. Dinabandhu climbed the main gate of the garden house. While doing so, the key of the garden house fell down from the cornice. He unlocked the gate using the key. He entered the garden house around 12:30 p.m. and found Dharmadasi lying dead with bleeding injuries on her mouth and nose. There was a ligature mark around her neck. The miscreants had murdered Dharmadasi and fled. He also noticed the ear rings and necklace of Dharmadasi were missing. Police came to the spot. He handed over the written complaint which was registered as Pandabeswar Police Station Case No. 17/08 dated 20.03.2008 under sections 302/394/411 I.P.C.
3. P.W. 25 Nabin Gopal Chakraborty took over investigation. Inquest and post mortem were held over the dead body. P.W. 17, Dr. Debasis Sarkar post mortem doctor opined death was due to strangulation by ligature, ante mortem and homicidal in nature.
4. On 05.03.2008, Sadhin Pal was arrested. Subsequently, Aditya Pal was arrested. Sadhin made a disclosure statement (Exhibit – 18) that he had sold the gold chain to one Shyam Jewellers and ear tops to one New Mohini Jewellers. Subsequently, Aditya also made a statement that he could identify the ornaments sold to the jewellers (Exhibit – 18/1). On 05.03.2008, they were taken to Shyam Jewellers. P.W. 14 Dilip Kumar Burman owner of the shop deposed he had purchased the gold chain from Sadhin who executed a receipt [Material Exhibit – B(1)]. The gold chain had been melted into three gold finger rings. Police seized the receipt and the finger rings. On next day, appellants were taken to New Mohini Jewellers. P.W. 9 Dharmendra Kumar Verma owner of New Mohini Jewellers identified Sadhin Pal as the person who sold the ear tops to him against receipt which was signed by Sadhin Pal [Material Exhibit – A(2)]. He produced gold ear tops which were identified by P.W. 3, Birup Kumar Mondal, son of the deceased and P.W. 8, Tarun Chowdhury, nephew of the deceased. Ear tops and the receipts signed by Sadhin were seized. Specimen signature was taken from Sadhin. Handwriting expert opined the signature on the seized receipt matched with the specimen signature of Sadhin.
5. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 302/394/201/411/34 of I.P.C. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. Prosecution examined 25 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.
6. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant
In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must establish a chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. Recovery of stolen articles soon after a murder, if proved....
Possession of stolen property establishes presumption of guilt in murder and robbery cases, despite delays in recovery; the link between offenses must be clear and established.
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused.
(1) All matters relating to crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel.(2) Appreciation of evi....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; failure to prove the last seen theory and inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the acquittal.
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
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
