Sukumar Sarkar vs State of West Bengal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1503

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chitta Ranjan Dash, Partha Sarathi Sen, JJ.
Sukumar Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. No. 608 of 2005
Decided On : 10-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Chandreyee Alam
For the Respondents: Joydeep Roy, Sujata Das

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Convict found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment by trial court - Evidence insufficient to establish intention or means to cause death - Conviction modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Onus of proof did not shift adequately to the accused, considering circumstantial evidence and lack of corroborative testimony. (Paras 1, 10, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his wife, Amala Sarkar, on 08.04.2003, by striking her with a hammer. Neighbors testified to finding her injured, and medical evidence indicated multiple fractures and hemorrhage as causes of death. (Paras 2, 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
Evidence fell short of establishing a case of murder; rather, it indicated culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The medical testimony did not sufficiently prove the level of intent. (Paras 10, 18)

Issues: Whether the learned trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC, or if the conviction should be adjusted based on intent and evidence presented. (Paras 11, 12, 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appellant's actions reflected culpable homicide under Section 304, not murder under Section 302, as there was insufficient evidence of intent to kill despite the fatality of the injuries. (Paras 16, 18)

Result: Appeal allowed in part, conviction modified to Section 304 Part 1 IPC, sentence confined to time already served. (Paras 20, 21)

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentence details. (Para 1)
2. victim's background and circumstances of the crime. (Para 2 , 3)
3. prosecution's witnesses and evidence overview. (Para 4)
4. defense argument highlighting doubts in evidence. (Para 5)
5. state’s argument regarding evidence and burden. (Para 6)
6. court’s analysis of witness testimonies. (Para 7 , 8)
7. autopsy findings and cause of death. (Para 9)
8. conclusion on the nature of the victim's death. (Para 10)
9. legal definitions and interpretations of culpable homicide. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18)
10. final judgment and modification of conviction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

1. The instant appeal arises out of the judgement of conviction and order of sentence both dated 25th November, 2004, as passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Durgapur in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2004 arising out of Sessions Case No. 96 of 2003. By the impugned judgement learned trial court found the present appellant Sukumar Sarkar guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and thus sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer further R.I for six months. The convict felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant application.

2. According to the prosecution one Kanai Lal Sarkar, son of Late Chuni Lal Sarkar of Village Beraberia Govt. Colony, P.S Amdanga, District North-24-Parganas lodged a written complaint with the New Township Police Station, Durgapur, District Burdwan stating, inter alia, that marriage of his youngest sister Amala Sarkar was solemnized with one Sukumar Sarkar of Subhas Pally, Durgapur-6 about 25 years back. It was his further version in the said written complaint that on 08.04.2003 at about 4 a.m his said brother-in-law Sukumar Sarkar assaulted his sister Amala by a hammer and on hearing alarm, the children of the deceased and her neighbours rushed to the spot where the victim was found in senseless condition and at that time she was profusely bleeding. According to him the victim was thereafter taken to Bidhannagar Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries on 09.04.2003 at about 1:40 p.m.

3. On the basis of the such written complaint NTS P.S Case No. 28/2003 dated 10.04.2003 was started under Section 304 IPC. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302 IPC. After commitment of the said case, the matter was transferred to the learned trial court for trial and disposal. Lower Court Record reveals that the learned trial court on the day of consideration of the charge after perusing entire materials as available in the case record and in the Case Diary framed charge under Section 302 IPC as against the present appellant. Since the present appellant before the learned trial court pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried, the said trial proceeded.

4. Trial Court Record reveals that for bringing home the charge under Section 302 IPC as against the accused, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in all and several documents have been exhibited on their behalf. Though before the learned trial court the accused have not adduced evidence on his behalf but from the trend of cross examination and the answers as given by the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C it transpires to us that the defence case is based on clear denial and false implication. For effective adjudication of the instant appeal short description of the prosecution witnesses are required to be given and thus are enumerated hereunder. PW1, PW3 and PW11 are the neighbours of the present appellant as well as of deceased. PW2 and PW4 are the daughter and son of the present appellant and the victim respectively. PW7 is the brother of the deceased and is the de facto complainant while PW8 is another brother of the victim. PW6 is the scribe. PW9 is a doctor of Durgapur Hospital and PW13 is a doctor of State General H