Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 86
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, GAURANG KANTH, JJ.
Haren @ Harendranath Murmu & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. 566 of 2018 (CRAN 2 of 2023) WITH C.R.A. 233 of 2020
Decided On : 15-01-2025
For the Appellants : Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Sahina Khatun, Adv., Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Adv., Ms. Madhurai Sinha, Adv., Mr. Ranabeer Halder, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, ld. P.P., Ms. Amita Gaur, Sr. Govt. Adv., Ms. Eshita Dutta, Adv.
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder based on corroborative eyewitness testimony and confessions, emphasizing the need to assess evidence in the context of mob violence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 and 449/34 - Conviction for murder and house trespass - Appellants convicted for the murder of Shyamal and sentenced to life imprisonment with fines - Evidence from eyewitnesses and confessions established involvement of appellants in the crime - Variations in witness statements were addressed, and the court upheld the conviction based on corroborative evidence. (Paras 1, 52, 54)
(B) FIR Registration - The court found no merit in the argument that the FIR was manufactured, noting promptitude in lodging the complaint and the credibility of the eyewitness. (Paras 23, 24)
(C) Eyewitness Credibility - The court emphasized the need to assess eyewitness testimony in the context of mob violence, allowing for some exaggeration while maintaining the core truth. (Paras 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Shyamal, who was attacked by a group of individuals, including the appellants, at the behest of a political rival. Eyewitness accounts and confessions linked the appellants to the crime. (Paras 1, 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction of two appellants based on consistent and corroborative evidence while acquitting one due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 51, 52)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the FIR, the reliability of eyewitness accounts, and the involvement of the appellants in the murder. (Paras 23, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony and confessions, sufficiently established the guilt of the appellants, despite some inconsistencies. (Paras 30, 32)
Result: Appeals dismissed for Bikash and Haren; Sushanta acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
1. Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2018 and 01.10.2018 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Case No. 16 (01) of 2013 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 43 (02) of 2015 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 449/34 of IPC and Sections 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years more for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for five months each for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC; both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. On 26.05.2012 at 2.10 A.M, Belarani Saha, (P.W 1) and her husband Sudhir Kumar Saha (P.W 2) heard shouts coming from outside the main door situated on the southern side of their house. They heard someone calling ‘Master Mosai come out’. As the voice was that of a known person, Sudhir and Belarani enquired who was calling. The caller stated “I am Bikash. Haren has sent us. There is some discussion with you”. The house of Sudhir comprised of a mud building which was occupied by him and his wife Belarani and one storied pucca building which was occupied by his son Shyamal and his wife Mayna Saha. The entire property had a boundary wall. Sudhir did not open the door and called his son and daughter-in-law who were inside the pucca building. At that time, he noticed some persons were climbing on the tile roof of the cowshed. Out of panic, he jumped from the first floor of the pucca building and became senseless. His son Shyamal and his wife Belarani came out of the building. Bikash asked Shyamal to give him water. Shyamal opened the door. Miscreants started searching for Sudhir in order to kill him. When they were unable to trace Sudhir, Bikash and Bhairab assaulted Shyamal with a ‘kurul’ (axe). Shyamal died at the spot. The miscreants left the spot threatening that they had formed a protection committee in the area and no one should support Trinamool.
3. Police came to the spot. Belarani (P.W 1) lodged written complaint which was scribed by Rajib Mahato (P.W 5). Written complaint was treated as First Information Report and Belpahari P.S Case No. 24/2012 under Sections 302/120B/109/427/34 IPC was registered against twenty-two accused persons including Bikash and Haren.
4. During investigation Investigating Officer (P.W 16) arrested Haren and others. From interrogation involvement of Sushanta and Shyamapada transpired. On the showing of Haren offending weapon i.e. axe was recovered from in front of his house under a mango tree. On the showing of Shyamapada one kathari (dagger) was recovered near Haren’s house. Bikash and Sushanta made confessional statements before the Magistrate. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and Shyamapada Sardar. In course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. During trial Shyamapada died.
5. In conclusion of trial, learned Trial Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2018 and 01.10.2018 convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.
6. Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, learned Advocate for Bikash Murmu (appellant in CRA 233 of 2020) submits the prosecution case has not been proved. As per FIR, the manner in which Shyamal was murdered is at variance with the deposition of witnesses including the de-facto complainant (P.W 1) in Court. In the FIR, P.W 1 claimed 22 persons had come to their house, they were variously armed. They started breaking the tile roof; her son and daughter-in-law opened the door. Bhairav (not sent up for trial) asked for water and she provided water. Then all the accused shouted they would kill her husband and when they could
