Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Sunil Malik @ Ramanandi – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. No. 159 of 2010
Decided On : 11-07-2024
Criminal - Homicide - IPC Sections 304 Part II - The court discussed the provisions of Section 304 of the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving intention or knowledge of the accused regarding the likelihood of causing death, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from a complaint alleging that the accused assaulted the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries after he protested against his son-in-law's second marriage. The prosecution claimed the accused acted with intent to kill, while the defense argued lack of evidence and alternative explanations for the death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence to establish the accused's intent or direct involvement in the assault, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death or grievous injury to the deceased, and whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to support the charges under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a conviction under Section 304 Part II, there must be clear evidence of intention or knowledge regarding the likelihood of causing death, which was not established in this case.
Result: The criminal appeal is allowed, and the accused are acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT :
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2009 and 09.12.2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2008 convicting the for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years more.
2. The prosecution case emanated out of a complaint lodged by one Sri Sukumar Singh at Pandua P.S. on 22.12.2004 which precisely stated that Smt. Kakali Roy, the younger daughter of the deceased Sambhu Roy and Smt. Sabita Roy, was married to Sushil Malik @ Ramanandi, the younger brother of accused Sunil who gave birth to a son. The accused Sunil, his mother Jhukki Malik and his wife Smt. Champa Malik resided jointly. Kishore Malik, the father of accused Sunil Malik resided separately. Sushil Malik resided elsewhere. Sushil Malik, the husband of Smt. Kakali Roy married for the second time elsewhere in Bihar at the instigation of the present accused persons as alleged. On 21.12.04 in between 8 p.m. and 08:30 p.m. the deceased Sambhu Roy went to the house of accused persons to protest the marriage of Sushil with another woman during the life time of Smt. Kakali Roy. The accused persons consequently assaulted Sambhu Roy causing fatal injuries, whereby he fell down on the ground, lost his sense and groaned. His daughter Smt. Kakali Roy and wife Smt. Sabita Roy rushed to the house of accused persons and witnessed the accused persons to assault Sambhu Roy. Local people also assembled at the spot. The accused persons escaped. Smt. Kakali Roy with the aid of local people including Dukhu Roy removed the deceased to Pandua hospital, who after his admission, succumbed to the injuries.
3. Based on the above written complaint Pandua P.S. Case No. 254/04 dated 22.12.2004 was registered and investigating initiated.
4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against all the F.I.R. above named accused persons including the vide charge-sheet no. 28.06 dated 28.02.2006 under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. Subsequently, charges against the and 2 other charge-sheeted accused persons were framed under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to which the pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charge against the, the prosecution examined 16 prosecution witnesses and exhibited certain documents.
7. The Learned Advocate for the as well as the State submitted their rival contentions and propositions.
8. The Learned Advocate for the submitted that:
(ii) The deposition of PW-3 was in material particularly inconsistent with the deposition of PW-2, as well as with the deposition of PW-15, the autopsy surgeon and with the deposition of PW-14, the Doctor who treated the deceased at first.
(iii) The as well as the female accused persons had conjointly assaulted the deceased and they were similarly situated regarding the commission of alleged offence. Exbt-5, the injury report which dealt with the name of the assailants also supported the version of PW-2 & PW-3. The depositions of PW-7, PW-8, PW-10, PW-11 regarding the commission of offence by the herein was based upon hearsay evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
A conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC requires clear evidence of intention or knowledge of the likelihood of causing death, which was not proven in this case.
The distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial in culpable homicide cases, affecting the applicability of Section 304 IPC.
The main legal point established is that the evidence of a sole eye-witness can be relied upon if it is convincing and corroborated by other evidence, even if the oral dying declarations are found to....
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
Eyewitness testimonies can substantiate convictions even amidst substantial trial delays, with the court having the discretion to modify sentences based on the age and circumstances of the accused.
Testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable due to the built-in guarantee of presence. The sudden fight exception applies to culpable homicide when committed without premeditation in the heat ....
The reliability of an injured eye-witness testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
