Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 284
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Radha Krishna Shaw - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA. No. 238 of 2021
Decided On : 28-02-2023
For the Appellant:Kallol Kumar Basu, Narayan Debnath, Md. Jannat
- Firdous, Saswata Chatterjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. App., Sonali Das, Advocate.
Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, especially when related witnesses may embellish or exaggerate to secure the offender's conviction, do not vitiate the veracity of their testimony if they prove the offender's involvement in the incident.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - WITNESSES - IDENTIFICATION - STREET LIGHTS - OFFENDING WEAPON - RECOVERY - SECTION 161 STATEMENT - FINGERPRINT - BLOOD ORIGIN - MINOR DISCREPANCIES - CONVICTION - AFFIRMED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Suraj Harijan, who was assaulted with a knife by the appellant's father, Mankeswar Shaw alias Barka, while the appellant held Suraj. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of contradictions in witness testimonies, unreliability of the written complaint, inconsistencies regarding witness presence, and lack of mention of street lights in the rough sketch map.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had sufficiently proved that the victim was assaulted with a knife and that the appellant dealt the fatal blow, resulting in his death. The doctor's testimony established the ante mortem and homicidal nature of the injuries, which were caused by a weapon identified as the one seized from the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the contradictions in witness testimonies and unreliability of the written complaint render the evidence unreliable? 2. Whether the inconsistencies regarding witness presence and lack of mention of street lights in the rough sketch map affect the credibility of the witnesses? 3. Whether the recovery of the alleged offending weapon was proved with the help of independent witnesses and produced under proper seal and label?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that minor discrepancies in witness narrations do not vitiate their veracity, especially when related witnesses may tend to embellish or exaggerate to secure the offender's conviction. Such embellishments do not impair testimonial exactitude if they prove the offender's involvement. 2. The court found that the witnesses were consistent in their account of the incident, stating that the appellant's father inflicted the fatal blow in their presence and sight. Their testimonies were not shaken in cross-examination, and there was sufficient light at the scene to enable them to witness the occurrence clearly. 3. While the appellant challenged the recovery of the offending weapon due to the absence of independent witnesses and lack of examination for fingerprints or blood origin, the court relied on the overwhelming eyewitness evidence that saw the appellant assaulting the victim with a knife on his neck.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It affirmed the judgment of conviction dated December 12, 2018, and order dated December 13, 2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2016.
JUDGMENT
Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated December 12, 2018 and order dated December 13, 2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2016 arising out of Sessions Case No. 142 of 2016.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. The appellant has sought to assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, so passed by learned trial court. It is the contended by learned advocate for the appellant that there are material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses which renders the evidence unreliable. It has been pointed out that there are contradictions with regard to the contents of the written complaint. It is not clear at whose instructions it was drafted, was it police or the de-facto complainant. Learned advocate for the appellant further pointed to the inconsistency regarding presence of the witnesses i.e. PW 1, 2 and PW3 at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. It has also been indicated that there is no mention of street lights in the rough sketch map and as such, it is not safe to believe that the witnesses could identify the perpetrator in such light. Mention has been made that the appellant was not known to the witnesses by his name and as such his identification by such witnesses in court was not trustworthy.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that a conviction on the basis of testimony of such witnesses cannot be sustained.
5. Learned advocate for the appellant further submits that the recovery of alleged offending weapon has not been proved with the help of independent witnesses and was not produced under proper seal and label. As such, cannot be relied upon.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State has submitted that the prosecution has been able to sufficiently prove that the victim was assaulted with a knife and the appellant dealt the fatal blow to the victim resulting in his death. The doctor who conducted the post mortem has proved the injuries found on the person of the victim which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature and that it were caused by a weapon which is shown to have been seized as shown by the appellant. The injuries so found on the person of the victim were identified as the cause of his death. As such, it is contended, that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges leveled against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be upheld.
7. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal in an epitome is that on April 22, 2016, there was an altercation between Suraj Harijan and Mankeswar Shaw alias Barka. The dispute cropped up over the meeting of Rabi. In course of such altercation father of Barka stabbed Suraj with a knife while Barka caught hold of Suraj. As a result of such assault, Suraj Harijan sustained bleeding injury over his neck. Alarms were raised over which local people assembled whereupon, both accused persons fade away. Suraj Harijan was taken to Chinsurah I.B. Hospital, where he was declared dead.
8. A written complaint was lodged by the sister of the victim over the incident on April 23, 2016. On the basis of such written complaint, Mogra Police Station Case No. 127 dated April 23, 2016 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started. The police took up investigation and on completion of investigation submitted chargesheet under the aforesaid sections against the two, First Information Report named accused persons.
9. On the basis of materials in the case diary, charge under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian penal code was framed against the two accused persons.
10. In order to bring home the charges levelled aga
