Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, GAURANG KANTH, JJ.
Sahabuddin Sheikh @ Sahabuddin Sk. and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. No. 576 of 2018, CRAN No. 2 of 2020 (Old CRAN No. 2388 of 2020), CRAN No. 3 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2024
Acquittal - Murder Case - IPC Sections 302/34 - The court analyzed the credibility of eyewitnesses and found inconsistencies in their testimonies, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' involvement in the crime, ultimately resulting in their acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for murder under IPC Sections 302/34 after allegedly attacking a man during a robbery attempt. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness accounts, but the defense argued that the witnesses were not present at the scene.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, leading to doubts about their presence at the crime scene and the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish the presence and credibility of eyewitnesses to secure a conviction, and any reasonable doubt must lead to acquittal.
Result: The appellants were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
1. Appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 17.09.2018 and 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court, Nadia, Krishnanagar in Sessions Trial No. 4 (6) 2018 arising out of Sessions Case No. 7 (3) 2011 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each.
Prosecution case:
2. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 11.6.2009 at 2 p.m. a dispute cropped up over snatching money from one Gosai Sk by the appellants and others. Tota Sk, husband of Ayesa Bibi (PW-2) rushed to the spot. He resisted the miscreants. One of the miscreants Siraj Sk threw bomb. He fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the miscreants including the appellants struck him with a sharp cutting weapon. As a result he died. Police came to the spot.
3. On the next day PW-2 lodged complaint resulting in registration of Nakashipara Police Station Case no. 248 dated 12.06.2009 under sections 302/34 IPC and sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act against eight named accused persons including the appellants. In course of investigation, one blood stained sharp cutting weapon was recovered from the spot. In conclusion of investigation, police report was field against the appellants as absconders. Appellants were declared as proclaimed offenders and trial commenced against other accused viz., Alam Sekh, Innat Sk. @ Innach and Ejarul Sekh. By judgment and order dated 27.04.2012 they were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. They appealed against the impugned judgment and order before this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2012.
4. In 2018 the appellants were arrested and put on trial. Charges were framed against them under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, prosecution examined 5 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. With consent of parties evidence of SI, Saikat Banerjee, SI, Ismail Hossein, SI, Gouri Prasanna Bandhu and Lal Mohan Dutta recorded in the previous trial was adopted.
5. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. It was the specific defence of the appellants that the genesis of the case has been suppressed. Siraj Sk and Raghu Sk (accused in the present case) had been murdered at the spot. A case had been registered by Raghu Sk’s wife against the associates of the deceased Tota Sk.
6. After considering the evidence on record and the defence of the appellants, trial Judge by the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2018 and 18.09.2018 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.
Arguments:
7. Mr. Chatterjee for the appellants contends the prosecution case is a concocted one. None of the witnesses namely PWs 2, 3, 4 and 7 were present at the spot. In court PW-2 did not state she accompanied her husband to the spot. She was at her residence at Haridrapota and it takes not less than 40 minutes to reach the place of occurrence. Her son and daughter came to the spot later. PW-2 admitted she had not seen the incident with her own eyes. PW-3, father of the deceased stated villagers informed him of the murder. PW-7’s presence at the spot is not corroborated by her mother, sister or grandfather. All the prosecution witnesses suppressed the genesis of the case which resulted in death of two of the accused namely Siraj Sk and Raghu Sk. Accordingly, appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.
8. Mr. Sur for the State submits PW-1, wife of the deceased had accompanied him to the spot. She saw the incident and is a reliable witness. Her deposition is corroborated by PWs 2, 3 and 5. Manner of assault as depicted by these witnesses is
The credibility of a minor witness, establishment of common intention, and proof of continuous torture under Section 498a/302/34 IPC were the central legal points established in the judgment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborated evidence and the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts to establish guilt under Section 302....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of eyewitness testimony, the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus', and the duty of the court to separate truth from em....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, affirming the principle that an interested witness's testimony requires corroborati....
In a murder case, the court must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing a sentence. The death sentence should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants had a common intention to murder the victim, and their actions did not fall within the exception for culpable homicide not amou....
Omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses to the investigating officer, which are significant and relevant to the case, can amount to material contradictions that affect the credibility of....
The conviction for murder was upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and corroborated eyewitness testimony, along with medical evidence, to prove the guilt of the accused and dismiss improb....
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
