Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Sambhu Sardar - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRA 491 of 2015 with CRA 391 of 2018
Decided On : 13-07-2023
MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 25/27 ARMS ACT - FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES - ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE - ORAL DYING DECLARATION - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - CALLING THE VICTIM FROM RESIDENCE - WITHHOLDING OF EYE-WITNESS - INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE - PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE CASE - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted by the trial court for murder under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-A) and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with one Babai, had called the victim from his residence and taken him to a pond near Gosala Math, where they shot him dead. The appellants claimed innocence and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no direct evidence implicating the appellants in the murder. The best evidence, Babu Yadav, who was cited as an eye-witness in the FIR, was withheld by the prosecution. The court also found that the oral dying declaration of the victim was not proved beyond doubt, as it was inconsistent and contradictory, and was not mentioned in the FIR or the deposition of the victim's father. The recovery of the weapon of offence on the leading statement of one of the appellants was also not proved, as the disclosure statement was not exhibited and the independent witnesses to the seizure did not identify the appellants. The only circumstance that the prosecution could claim to be of substance, that the appellants had called the victim from his residence immediately prior to the incident, was not corroborated by the victim's mother.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as there was no direct evidence implicating the appellants, the best evidence was withheld, the oral dying declaration was not proved beyond doubt, and the recovery of the weapon of offence was not proved. 2. The court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution had failed to establish the vital and incriminating circumstances beyond doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) :
1. Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2013 and 31.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Barrackpore in Sessions Trial No. 2(1)2012 FTC-1 arising out of Sessions Case No.237 of 2011 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-A) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs.2000/-each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants, is to the effect that at 9:00P.M. on 07.04.2017 appellants with one Babai and others had came to the residence of Subhash Yadav, a milk vendor (PW 1) and called his son Puglu @ Lalu. They took him to a pond near Gosala Math. Soon thereafter, Subhash Yadav heard sound of bullets. He along with others came to the pond and found his son Lalu lying with bleeding injuries. His younger son, Raju Yadav and others shifted to the victim to Ghola Hospital where he was declared dead. One Babu Yadav, his brother’s son, was near the place of occurrence and had witnessed the incident. He knew the miscreants who committed the crime.
3. On the written complaint of Subhash Yadav (PW 1) Khardah Police Station Case No. 202 of 2011 dated 08.04.2011 under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered against Pagla Barui, Sambhu Sardar and one Babai. In the course of investigation the appellants i.e. Pagla Barui and Sambhu Sardar were arrested. It is alleged Pagla Barui made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of an improvised shorter pipegun and an empty cartridge from Amarabati playground. Postmortem report showed that the victim had died due to gunshot injury. Ballistic expert opined the pipegun was in working condition and cartridge could have been fired from the said arms. Babai could not be arrested and was declared as an absconder.
4. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.
5. In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2013 and 31.08.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.
6. I have considered the evidence on record.
7. PW 1 (Subhash Yadav) is the father of the deceased. He deposed on 07.04.2011 at around 9.00 to 9.15 P.M. his son Lalu had been called to Gosala Math by the appellants and one Babai. Soon thereafter, he heard sound of firing of bullets. He rushed to Gosala Math and found his son lying beside the tank known as Satish Pukur. He along with his two sons Raju and Gopal and his wife Asha shifted the victim to Ghola Hospital. There he was declared dead. Police was intimated. He lodged written complaint which was scribed by PW 7, Subhendu Bhattacharya. He signed the inquest report.
8. PW 2 (Gopal Kumar Yadav) is the son of PW 1 and the brother of the deceased. He corroborated his father that the appellants and one Babai had come to their
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to do so, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on a credible dying declaration corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to establish the identification of the appellants and the motive for the murders, leading to their acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in a murder case, including motive, place of occurrence, recovery of the weapon, and the....
The conviction for murder cannot be sustained without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; reasonable doubt must benefit the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborated evidence and the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts to establish guilt under Section 302....
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
