SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Cal) 51

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Ex. CT. Vijay Prakash - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Others
- Respondent
WPA. Nos. 15518 of 2022 & 31234 of 2017
Decided On : 12-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ashima Mandla, Surya Prakash Singh, Ritu Das, Sangkrito Ray Chowdhuri, Advocates. For the Respondents:Dayashankar Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Sushil Kr. Mishra, Shailendra Kr. Mishra, Sabnam Laskar, Advocates.

The court noted the failure to observe principles of natural justice in the appellate process, resulting in the modification of a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Headnote:(A) Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 46 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307 - Petitioner's conviction for murder and attempt to murder contested, with claims of due process violation - Court reiterated principles of natural justice and improper evidence consideration by the Appellate Authority - Finding of insufficient evidence to support prior convictions established; sentence modified accordingly. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 23, 54)

Facts of the case:
Writ petitions by Ex. CT. Vijay Prakash challenging orders against his conviction for murder and attempt to murder with claims of judicial error, lack of opportunity to present his case, and improper procedural adherence in prior judgments. Court proceedings revealed critical inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the conduct of the trial.

Findings of Court:
Concluded that the trial court misapplied legal standards and ignored substantial evidential contradictions, resulting in excessive sentences. Court permitted a re-evaluation and alteration of charges based on new interpretations of established facts.

Issues: The primary issues involved procedural fairness in the Appellate Authority’s decisions, the reliability of evidence presented during trial, and the appropriateness of charges under the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The Higher Court determined that the Appellate Authority failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner adequate opportunity to defend, thereby compromising the integrity of the legal proceedings. It outlined the necessity for courts to provide comprehensive justifications for their decisions, particularly in serious criminal cases.

Result: Conviction modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder with altered sentences of 10 years and 7 years, respectively, both running concurrently.

Table of Content
1. filing of writ petitions and background details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 8)
2. arguments concerning natural justice violations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
3. witness testimonies lack corroboration and prosecution fails to prove alcohol influence. (Para 23 , 24 , 46 , 48)
4. application of exceptions to culpable homicide. (Para 50 , 52)
5. conclusion: conviction altered. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT

1. Both writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment since similar issues are involved in both the writ petitions filed by the petitioner, Ex. CT. Vijay Prakash.

FACTS LEADING TO FILING OF TWO WRIT PETITIONS:

2. In the first writ petition being WPA No. 31234 of 2017, the writ petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Director General, Boarder Security Force (herein referred to as The D.G, BSF), Block-10, CGO Complex, New Delhi -110003 in appeals/representations filed by the Jail Authority as well as through his counsel under Section 117 of BOARDER SECURITY FORCE ACT , 1968 (BSF Act) thereby declared the petitioner as guilty and further confirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.04.2012 passed by Learned General Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘GSF Court’) in a Trial, No. 941062422 Constable Vijay Prakash of 140 BN BSF, whereby convicted him for an offence committed under Section 46 of the BOARDER SECURITY FORCE ACT , 1968 that is say for murder and attempt to murder punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and sentenced him “To Suffer Life imprisonment and to be dismissed from service”.

The contention of the Petitioner is that appeal was considered by the Respondent No. 3 only on the basis of aforesaid written representations/ appeals. No proper appreciation or marshalling of evidences either oral or documentary adduced by the Prosecution have been taken into consideration by the Respondent No. 3. Surprisingly, no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner to place the case through his learned counsel and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. The Respondent No.3 decided the case without applying his judicious mind and finally confirmed the judgment and order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the GSF Court illegally and erroneously contending therein simply that the appeal is devoid of merit.

Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Respondent No. 3/the D.G, BSF, the writ petitioner had earlier preferred a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 4462 of 2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi through his earlier counsel on the impression that the territorial jurisdiction lies before the Delhi High Court as the head office of the Appellate Authority is situated in New Delhi. In the said writ petition, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on several occasions, directed to file reply and rejoinder to the parties but at the time of hearing, a preliminary question of territorial jurisdiction was raised by the respondents since the alleged incident took place within the State of West Bengal and Trial held in West Bengal on the basis of case originated in the West Bengal. Accordingly, the writ petitioner had to seek before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for withdrawal of the writ petition and the said prayer for withdrawal of the said writ petition was simply allowed on 11.12.2014 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

3. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed first writ petition being WPA No. 31234 of 2017 before this court seeking for setting aside and/or quashing of the purported order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the D.G, BSF and impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the General Security Force Court with other consequential relief.

4. The said first writ petition was heard by Hon’ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee of this Court on 05.10.2021 and after hearing and considering the provision laid down in Border Security Force Act and Rules frame

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top