In the Matter of: Sandip Ghosh vs State of West Bengal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1392

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, PRASENJIT BISWAS, JJ.
In the Matter of: Sandip Ghosh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRA Nos. 219, 320, 338 of 2013, IA No. CRAN 3 of 2017 (Old No. CRAN 1334 of 2017), IA No. CRAN 4 of 2020 (Old No. CRAN 3439 of 2020), IA No. CRAN 3 of 2021
Decided On : 14-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sekhar Kumar Basu, Antarikhya Basu, Ayan Bhattacharjee, Apalak Basu, Pritha Bhaumik, Nazir Ahmed, Shounak Mondal, Sudipto Maitra, Vijay Verma, Dwaipayan Biswas.
For the Respondents: Neguieve Ahmed, Sanjay Bardhan, Trina Maitra.
For the Defacto Complainant : Ganesh Chandra Maity, Aslam Khan, Abhradip Maity.

Headnote:
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MURDER - IPC 302/201, 34 - SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 34 - The court discussed the law relating to circumstantial evidence and emphasized the importance of establishing a complete chain of events and circumstances. It highlighted the need for evidence to be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and exclude any other reasonable explanation. The court also emphasized the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and the limited applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The judgment also referred to the significance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of a victim based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case was primarily based on the 'last seen theory' and the conduct of the accused. The victim was taken to multiple hospitals by the accused, and the prosecution alleged that the accused concealed the victim's identity and conspired to murder him. The prosecution failed to establish a strong motive for the crime. The trial court heavily relied on the 'last seen theory' and the conduct of the accused, but the evidence was found to be weak and insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events and circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of last seen, conduct of the accused, and the absence of a strong motive were insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court also emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also considered the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the significance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the need for the prosecution to establish a complete chain of events and circumstances, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and excluding any other reasonable explanation. It highlighted the limited applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the significance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court also clarified that the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Final Decision: The appeals succeeded, and the order of the trial court convicting the appellants was set aside. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless their presence was required in any other case.

JUDGMENT :

PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.

1. The captioned appeals, by lifers, are directed against the self-same judgment and order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in connection with Sessions Trial No. 01(07)/2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 05(03)/2007.

2. In the Trial Court the appellants Saheb Das and Sandip Ghosh were convicted under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘the IPC’) for having committed murder of one Anindya Rudra (hereafter referred to as ‘the victim’) and the appellant Sukumar Karmakar was convicted under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life besides imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine they are to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The appellants Saheb Das and Sandip Ghosh were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to suffer the imprisonment for a term of six months for the offence punishable under section 201/34 IPC. Hence, these appeals.

3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows:

One complaint was lodged on 24.09.2006 before the police station by one Amit Rudra, father of the victim stating that on 17.09.2006 the convict Sahadeb Das and another person took away his son by riding him on a scooter from his house. On that day at about 5-00 p.m. one phone call was received by his wife informing that the victim has fell down from cot and blood was oozing out from his ear. At first, he was taken to R.G. Kar Hospital and the name of the victim was stated therein as Bappa Das, resident of Green Park. The convict Sahadeb Das’s mother’s name was given in the place of the victim’s mother’s name. Subsequently, the victim was shifted to P.G. Hospital and thereafter to Chittaranjan Hospital and lastly shifted to CMRI Hospital. In every hospital the name of the victim was given as Bappa Das with the address as mentioned above. It is further stated before every hospital that the victim sustained injuries as he fell from the cot. Ultimately the victim succumbed to injuries.

4. The mother of the victim namely Minakshi Rudra lodged one complaint before the Lake Town P.S. on 22.09.2006 stating that on 17.09.2006 at about 11-30 p.m. the convict Saheb Das and his friend came to their house and took her son/victim with them by riding on a scooter. Since, 12-30 noon she repeatedly tried to contact with the victim of his mobile phone but it was going unanswered. On the same day at about 5-30 p.m. Sahadeb’s mother called her over phone informing that the victim fell down from a cot in their house and sustained injury in his ear and was taken to hospital for treatment. This complainant again received a phone call from the maternal uncle of the convict Saheb Das informing that the victim fell down from the top of water tank to the lower terrace. She was further informed that her son was taken to R.G. Kar Hospital. Before the hospital the name of the victim was stated as Bappa Das, resident of Green Park and the mother of the convict Saheb introduced herself as the mother of the victim. On enquiry by the hospital, it was stated that no diary has been lodged before any police station. As the hospital did not take admission of the victim, she was taken to P.G. Hospital and scan of the victim was done there. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Chiita Ranjan Hospital. In the meantime, this complainant received a phone call from the maternal uncle of the convict Saheb and sent one doctor Baral who was the resident of their house to P.G. Hospital and he accompanied the victim till to Chitta Ranjan Hospital. It is further stated in the complaint that Doctor Baral gave Rupees 5000/- to the mother of Saheb when the victim was taken to CMRI Hospital and the victim was admitted therein. After getting inform