Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
Chunna @ Dilip Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. 124 of 2011
Decided On : 15-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Nahid Ahmed (Amicus Curiae)
For the State : Mr. Avishek Sinha

IMPORTANT POINT
Eyewitness testimony from relatives is admissible and credible if consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, regardless of their relationship to the victim.

Headnote:
Criminal Law - IPC - Sections 341, 304 - The court interpreted the provisions of Sections 341 and 304 of the IPC, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in establishing culpability, leading to the conviction of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of wrongfully restraining and assaulting the victim, resulting in grievous injuries that led to the victim's death. The incident occurred during a quarrel, and the prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses credible and consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, despite minor contradictions. The nature of the injuries indicated intent to kill, and lapses in the investigation did not undermine the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the eyewitness accounts, was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt under Sections 341 and 304 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimonies of related witnesses could not be dismissed solely based on their relationship to the victim, provided their accounts were consistent and credible, which was the case here.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly, in Sessions Case No.107 of 2004 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.18 of 2005 whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, further simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.

2. On 29.08.2002 a written complaint was lodged at Mogra Police Station, inter alia, stating that on 26.08.2002 in the evening at about 7:30 P.M., the elder brother of the complainant was returning to his house from market after purchasing meat. On the way the appellant and another accused namely Manoj Kumar Sharma wrongfully restrained the victim and assaulted him with bamboo stick and iron rod. On hearing the clamour, the complainant rushed to the place of occurrence but the miscreants fled and he found his elder brother with grievous injuries on his head with profuse bleeding from his nose and mouth. The complainant lifted his brother on a rickshaw and removed him to Mogra Hospital with the help of his tenants. Subsequently, he was refused admission at Chinsurah Sadar Hospital and at the precarious condition, he was referred to Kolkata for better treatment and he was admitted in Life Line Nursing Home, Kolkata and subsequently he succumbed to his injuries. It had also been alleged that the miscreants had snatched away the HMT watch and cash from his elder brother.

3. Based on the said complaint, Mogra P.S. Case No.101 of 2002 dated 29. 08.2002 was registered under Section 341/325/326/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and another accused and after the death of the victim Anil Mahato, the penal provision under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

4. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet bearing No.25 of 2003 dated 28.02.2003 was submitted against the appellant and Manoj Kumar Sharma under Sections 341/325/326/307/304 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted as follows:-

i. The allegation made by the de facto complainant herein and/or PW-1, being the brother of the deceased herein, was false on the face of it and on perusal of the deposition of PW-1 along with comparative analysis of the written complaint, it would be evident that the instant written complaint was nothing but a mere anger upon the appellant arising out of mental agony of losing his brother and an instant repercussion of the same on the appellant and his brother. In the written complaint PW-1 stated upon hearing hue and cry of his deceased brother, he reached the place of occurrence but in his deposition PW-1 stated that he was with the deceased while the deceased was assaulted by the appellant and PW-1 was also assaulted by the appellant, contrary to the statement in the written complaint.

ii. In the deposition PW-1 stated that the dispute between the deceased and the appellant was because the appellant tried to snatch away meat from the deceased but in the written complaint, it was stated that there was previous animosity between the appellant and the deceased. In his deposition PW-1 claimed to be an eye-witness which was contrary to the sequence of events stated in the written complaint.

iii. The deposition of PW-7 was contrary to the events stated in the written complaint as in his deposition PW-7 said that the appellant tried to assault