IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rajasekhar Mantha, Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Sudarshan Mondal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRA 203 of 2015, CRA 220 of 2015
Decided On : 25-11-2025
JUDGMENT :
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31st March, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2003 arising out of Sessions Case No. 217 of 2001.
2. The appellants including all the other accused persons were found guilty of offences under Section 147 and 148 of the IPC , and were sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment of one year each and further pay a fine of Rs 2,000 each. In default of the payment, they were to further undergo a rigorous imprisonment of three months each.
3. Accused Umakanto, Sudarshan, the appellant, and Sudhir were further found guilty of offences under Section 447 read with Section 149 of the IPC and were sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and was directed to pay a fine of Rs 500 each. In default thereof, they were to further undergo a rigorous imprisonment of 15 days.
4. Accused Umakanto, Sudarshan and Sudhir were also found guilty of the offences punishable under section 302 of the IPC read with section 149 of the and were sentenced to life imprisonment and were directed to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 each. In default thereof, they were to further undergo a rigorous imprisonment of 2 years each.
5. The sentences as stated were directed to run concurrently.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
6. On 29th January, 1998 at about 8:30 AM, 14 accused persons including the appellants, brutally attacked and killed the victim Akalu Mondal. The appellants also brutally attacked Mohilal Mondal, and Bijoy Mondal. Akalu was the son of Mohilal Mondal. Akalu was the brother of Bijoy Mondal.
7. About 5-6 months prior to the incident, the accused Gudar Mondal in a drunken condition snatched rupees 800/- and a bicycle from Bijoy Mondal at Khejuria Ghat, Bodtola more. Akalu Mondal lodged a complaint with the local P.S. in that regard.
8. On the fateful day, i.e. 29th January, 1998, the complainant Baidyanath Mondal, PW 1, another son of Mohilal Mondal, went to seek justice for his brother Bijoy Mondal, from one Sachitra Mondal, a local gram panchayat member, against the snatching of Rs 800 and theft of a bicycle.
9. Sachitra Mondal, PW 2, who was working in a field, is stated to have said that he alone cannot bring out any settlement and directed the complainant to go to the house of one Chand Miya and participate in a “Salish” (a meeting for dispute resolution, in presence of distinguished villagers and elders).
10. A Salish was called on at the house of Chand Miya, where one of the accused Umakanta Mondal was present. He is stated to have told Chand Miya and one Sachitra that he would go to his village and bring a village elder, locally referred to as a ‘Morol’.
11. Later, all the 14 accused persons under the leadership of accused Umakanta Mondal arrived at the Salish armed with sharp cutting weapons used in agriculture, locally called Ballam, Sulpi, Hasua, and also carried bows and arrows.
12. Seeing the belligerence of the accused persons, Sachitra and Chand Miya told Mohilal Mondal and his sons Baidyanath, Akalu and Swapan Mondal to leave the Salish and save their lives. Together they ran into the house of one Ramakanta Rabidas and bolted the door from inside. The complainant Baidyanath Mondal ran far away from the place and hid in a place from where he could see the PO.
13. The accused persons later encircled the house of Ramakanta Rabidas. Accused Jiten, Sudarshan, and Sudhir climbed the roof of the house, broke open the tiles therefrom and entered the house. The other accused persons broke the door of the house and entered the house.
14. The accused no. 1 Gudar Mondal, since deceased, assaulted Akalu Mondal with a Ballam in different parts of the body. Umakanta Mondal and Jiten chopped Akalu Mondal with a Hasua. The father of the appellant Mohilal Mondal was also severely assaulted.
15. The elder brothers of the complainant, Bijoy Mondal and Swapan Mondal hid themselves under a cot in the room and/or stood thereat. Th
Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors
Parshuram Versus State Of M.P.
Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra
Narayan Yadav V. State Of Chhattisgarh
Laxmi Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
AI
The court emphasized that all members of an unlawful assembly may be held liable for murder, reaffirming the interpretation of common intention under Section 149 IPC.
The court established that in cases of unlawful assembly, all members can be held vicariously liable for the actions taken in furtherance of a common object, and that the prosecution's failure to exp....
The evidence must establish a premeditated intent to commit murder and the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder to support a conviction for murder under Secti....
The unlawful assembly's common object did not support the charge of murder; liability under Section 149 requires proof of foresight for the act committed, demonstrated through individual roles during....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of analyzing the relevant provisions of the IPC and applying them to the facts of the case in order to determine the nature of the offense ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.