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) 501

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Ex. CT. Vijay Prakash, No 941062422 OF 140 BN – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
WPA 15518 of 2022 With WPA 31234 of 2017
Decided on : 12-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Ashima Mandla, Mr. Surya Prakash Singh, Ms. Ritu Das, Adv., Mr. Sangkrito Ray Chowdhuri, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dayashankar Mishra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sushil Kr. Mishra, Adv., Mr. Shailendra Kr. Mishra, Adv., Ms. Sabnam Laskar, Adv.

The conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of evidence and violation of natural justice principles during the appellate process.

Headnote:(A) Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 46 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307 - Writ petitions challenging conviction and sentence for murder and attempt to murder - Court ruled a violation of natural justice as the Appellate Authority did not consider evidence presented - The judgment of the General Security Force Court was found to be based on insufficient evidence and lack of opportunity for a hearing. (Paras 48-54)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles violated when the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to present his case adequately during the appeal process. (Paras 12, 48)

(C) Conviction - The court altered the conviction From murder under IPC 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC 304, based on the context of a sudden quarrel. (Paras 52, 54)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for firing during a sudden altercation, leading to the death of a civilian, but there were disputes about the circumstances and provocation related to the incident. (Paras 3-6, 24)

Findings of Court:
Sufficient evidence did not support the charge of premeditated murder or attempt to murder. The petitioner had acted without prior intent to kill. (Paras 52-54)

Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of the evidence used in the conviction and the violation of the petitioner's rights during the appeal process. (Paras 8-24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that there was a lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's claims of guilt, leading to a re-evaluation of the charges from murder to culpable homicide. (Paras 52-54)

Result: The conviction was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC with a concurrent sentence, and the petitioner was to be released forthwith, given the time already served. (Paras 54, 56)

Table of Content
1. combined challenges to the conviction under various sections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the conditions of the incident and evidence anomaly. (Para 12 , 14)
3. court's examination of the evidence and witness reliability. (Para 23 , 30)
4. final decision on the alteration of conviction based on the findings. (Para 54 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

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 framed thereunder, His Lordship was pleased to pass an order, i

          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