Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 957

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Putul Majhi @ Beshra – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. 86 of 2015
Decided on : 27-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Moinak Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Roma Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Das, Adv.

The testimony of reliable eye witnesses is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, even in the absence of a strong motive for the crime.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION FOR MURDER - EYE WITNESSES - RELIABILITY - MOTIVE - INADEQUACY OF MOTIVE - NO SIGNIFICANCE - EYE WITNESSES AVAILABLE - CONVICTION AFFIRMED.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Putul Majhi, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his elder brother, Kanglu Majhi, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of three eye witnesses, namely, the victim's wife (PW 3), his son (PW 4), and his son's wife (PW 5). The witnesses stated that the appellant had assaulted the victim with an axe while he was sleeping, and that they had seen the appellant fleeing from the scene after the incident. The appellant denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the eye witnesses were reliable and that their testimony was consistent and unshaken during cross-examination. The Court also found that the appellant had a motive for committing the murder, as the victim's wife had testified that the appellant had been harassing her and that the victim had decided to leave for Fusro to escape the appellant's advances.
Issues: 1. Whether the eye witnesses were reliable? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved the motive for the murder? 3. Whether the conviction was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the eye witnesses were reliable as they were close relatives of the appellant and the victim, and that there was no reason for them to falsely implicate the appellant. 2. The Court held that the prosecution had proved the motive for the murder, as the victim's wife had testified that the appellant had been harassing her and that the victim had decided to leave for Fusro to escape the appellant's advances. 3. The Court held that the conviction was justified, as the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This appeal has been filed by the convict/appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 234 of 2013, whereby convicting the appellant punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-with a condition that if he fails to pay the fine amount, he further suffered simple imprisonment for two months and if he paid the fine amount in full then 1/4th of the fine amount to be paid to the wife of deceased after due identification and verification.

Facts of the Case :

2. One Bindu Majhi lodged a written complaint to the effect that on 29.04.2013 in the night at about 2 a.m., Putul Majhi, the youngest son of his uncle Rupai Majhi attacked his own eldest brother Kanglu Majhi with an axe while he was sleeping. When the family members of Kanglu came to rescue him, Putul Majhi fled away from the spot. Victim Kanglu Majhi was removed to Balarampur Hospital for his treatment. But after primary treatment, he was again shifted to Purulia Sadar Hospital for better treatment. He ultimately succumbed to his injuries. On the strength of the said written complaint, Balarampur Police Station Case No. 22 of 2013 dated 29.04.2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant, Putul Majhi and the investigation commenced.

3. During investigation, I.O. visited the P.O., prepared a rough sketch map with index, recorded the statement of witnesses, seized alamats, collected injury reports and post-mortem report. On completion of investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and same was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

4. Charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution has examined altogether 19 witnesses and recorded their oral evidence and produced documents which were marked as Exhibits 1 to 17 and Material Exhibits I to III. After conclusion of evidence, an opportunity was given to the defence but appellant did not prefer to adduce defence witnesses. However, during examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the case of the prosecution and claimed himself as innocent and further took a plea of false implication.

Findings of the Trial Court :

5. After thorough scanning and assessing the oral and documentary evidences and hearing the parties elaborately, the Trial Judge came to the conclusion that wife, son and son’s wife of victim Kanglu being eye witnesses have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed murder of his own elder brother Kanglu Majhi with an Axe and had fled away from the spot by dropping the weapon (Axe). Other local inhabitants appeared just after the occurrence at the P.O. and came to know that the appellant had committed murder of Kanglu Majhi. Trial Court opined that no one would falsely implicate their own family member for doing such a heinous crime and let the real culprit to go scot free. Another witness, namely, Lagan Majhi who is younger brother of the deceased also saw Putul Majhi running to Kuli Rasta after the incident. Trial Judge finally came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. Hence, Trial Judge finally by impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 convicted and sentenced the appellant, Putul Majhi as aforesaid.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution case suffers from improbabilities as there was no eye-witness because alleged incident occurred at night. No one was present at the spot and saw with their own eye that the appellant had assaulted