Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 231

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Aimuddin Sheikh & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. 480 of 2012
Decided On : 18-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arindam Jana, Mr. Sumanta Das, Mr. Yuvraj Chatterjee, Mr. Saikat Guin, Mr. Akash Sarkar.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Faria Hossain, ld. A.P.P., Mr. Anand Keshari.

The absence of premeditation and the nature of familial disputes lead to conviction under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 304 - Conviction for murder - The appellants were initially sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC - However, the Court found no evidence of premeditation and determined the incident fell within the purview of Section 304 IPC - The appellants were convicted under Section 304 part I and sentenced to the period of incarceration already suffered, which was 14 years. (Paras 44-46)

(B) Evidence - Discrepancies and inconsistencies - The Court noted inconsistencies among witness statements regarding the place and circumstances of the assault, but ruled that the evidence of the surviving victim and medical evidence established the occurrence of the assault. (Paras 11, 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The appellants are brothers to the victims. A dispute over property led to a violent altercation resulting in the death of one victim and injuries to another. The conviction was challenged and subsequently modified based on factors including lack of premeditation.

Findings of Court:
The Court found sufficient evidence to convict under Section 304 but noted the familial nature of the dispute and lack of prior deliberation.

Issues: The key issues were whether the crime constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering the absence of premeditation and the dynamics of the familial dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for mutual provocation and absence of premeditation in determining the applicable provision under IPC, thus applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Result: The appeal was partially allowed, leading to a conviction under Section 304.

Table of Content
1. dispute among family members escalated to violent crime. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. witness testimonies showed discrepancies, but established evidence of assault. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 17 , 22 , 28)
3. legal classification of the actions as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 30 , 31 , 36 , 44)
4. conviction aligned with the sentencing for the period already served. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)

Judgment :

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.

1. The subject appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. IX (II) of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 26 (2) of 2012. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

THE PROSECUTION CASE AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD

2. The appellants and victims were related to each other as brothers. The appellants and victims are 4 out of 6 brothers and 2 sisters. Raham Box Sk was their father. He had divided his properties equally amongst the 6 brothers. After the brothers received the property by way of registered instrument from their father, a dispute cropped up between them as to who would feed their parents.

3. In view of the reluctance and difference of opinion between the appellants and the victims, a meeting was called by one of the brothers namely Kalimuddin Sk at the house of the said father. In course of the meeting, there was a heated exchange between the appellants and the victims Ainuddin Sk and Shukur Ali Sk. The appellants are stated to have left the place of occurrence and returned back within 3 minutes with sharp cutting weapons which included a Bhojali, Hasua and a rod and a stick mounted with a metal fork. They assaulted the deceased victim Ainuddin Sk and Kalimuddin Sk.

4. To prevent the assault on the victims, the wife of Ainuddin and his mother are stated to have intervened. The mother was struck on the head with a hasua. Upon a hue and cry being raised by the wife of Ainuddin, PW 2 Hosai Bibi, the local villagers from a nearby mosque immediately rushed to the place of occurrence.

5. The appellants fled from the scene. Ainuddin and Kalimuddin were taken to Katwa Hospital where Ainuddin was declared brought dead. Kalimuddin, however, recovered after a few days.

6. The police are stated to have received information about the incident late in the night of the fateful day over the telephone. No GD entry was however recorded by the police on receipt of this information.

7. It is only after Ainuddin died, that PW 1 Mohiruddin Sk,hisfather-in- law, who came to the place of occurrence on being informed over the telephone by his daughter Hosai Bibi, filed a formal complaint with the Kaligunj PS. The complaint was scribed by PW 3 allegedly on the instructions of PW 1. It is surprising to note that none of family members from the side of the appellants or the victims lodged any complaint with the police.

8. Kaligunj PS registered the FIR no. 214 of 2011 dated 13.04.2011 at about 03:05 PM under Section 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 against Alimuddin Sk, Asish Sk and Shukur Ali Sk. Shukur was the son of appellant no. 1 Alimuddin Sk.

9. Charges were framed against Aimuddin Sk and Shukur Ali Sk the two appellants herein under Section 326, 307 and 302 of the IPC. The other FIR named accused went absconding even before the charge sheet was filed.

10. It appears from the deposition of the PW 13, the Investigating Officer, that the statement of PW 2 under 164 of the CrPC was recorded two months after the incident. The statement of PW 5 Bakul Sk, the son of the deceased was not recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.

ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT

11. There are some discrepancies between the witnesses for the prosecution as regards the exact place of occurrence. PW 1 and 3 stated that the PO was the house of the father of the v