Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rajasekhar Mantha, Ajay Kumar Gupta
Surajit Das @ Narkel @ Surojit Das – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
THE APPEAL
1. The instant appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated 25th July, 2016 and 26th July, 2016 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 1(5) of 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 472 of 2012. The accused/appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, as also under Sections 25 (1A) & 27 (2) of the Arms Act, 1959.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
2. The prosecution case is that on 16th July, 2012, the victim, Prosenjit Roy @ Rintu, while travelling on a motorcycle alone at about 06:15 am, was chased by Tinku Naskar @ Poka, Surajit Das @ Narkel and Subrata Roy on another motorcycle in a place called Kalitala, under Airport Police Station in Lake Town Area.
3. The riders of the two motorcycles hit a bump and fell down. The victim, Prosenjit Roy, started running towards the northern side of the road leading to a vacant land. The aforesaid three accused persons were carrying 9mm regular and improvised pistols, and shot the victim repeatedly on the back of his head and the back of his abdomen. More shots were fired at the chest and
Conviction upheld for murder based on reliable eyewitness testimony, establishing collective intent under IPC sections, while addressing proper charge framing and witness credibility.
The court affirmed that related witnesses' testimony is admissible if credible, and chance witnesses' accounts require careful scrutiny but can also support a conviction.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the crime, affirming that minor inconsistencies in evidence do not undermine th....
The court reaffirmed that discrepancies in minor details do not undermine the credibility of eyewitnesses in violent crimes where the prosecution has established overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Point of Law : When there are eyewitnesses to prove the charge, failure on the part of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of circumstance would become irrelevant.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
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
