Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, JJ.
Rooma Majumdar, Widow of Tapas @ Sukriyo Majumdar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1576 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2017
Decided on : 07-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of multiple appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. trial court conviction analysis. (Para 10) |
| 4. counterarguments by the accused. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. prosecution evidence evaluation. (Para 14) |
| 6. court's review of the evidence. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. ratio decimenti underlines strict application of circumstantial evidence principles. (Para 17) |
| 8. circumstantial evidence principles. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. motive and conduct consideration. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. substance of evidence and conviction thresholds. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 11. expert evidence relevance. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 12. appellants' acquittal findings. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 13. final judgment and order. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
(1) Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of fact and law involved and being arising out of a common impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, these three criminal appeals are clubbed together, heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
(2) In these three criminal appeals, four accused-appellants herein, namely, Rooma Majumdar (A-1), Dulal Chakravarty (A-2), Bheem Kumar (A-3) and Motilal (A-4) have invoked criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) in Sessions Case No.28 of 2013, whereby they all have been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s 302 of IPC | Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months each. |
| U/s 120-B of IPC | Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months each. |
| U/s 201 of IPC | R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months each |
[All the sentences are directed to run concurrently]
(3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 22-23.11.2012, at Staff Quarter No.1B/57, Koriya Colliery within the ambit of Police Station Chirmiri, Koriya, all the accused-appellants herein firstly conspired with each other and shared common intention to commit murder of Supriyo Majumdar @ Tapas (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) and, in furtherance thereof, caused his death and, thereby, the appellants are said to have committed offences under Sections 302 /34, 201 & 120-B of IPC.
(4) The further case of the prosecution is that complainant, namely, Arun Kumar Benerjee (PW-02), who is neighbour of the deceased, lodged report at Police Chowki Koriya, Police Station Chrimiri to the effect that on the date and time of the offence, the deceased, who was Mechanic Fitter, used to reside alongwith his family at Staff Quarter No.1B/57, Koriya Colliery (hereinafter referred to as “the place of incident”). In the morning, at about 06:30 AM, Mohan (not examined), who was sweeper in the house of the deceased, informed him that somebody has committed murder of the deceased, thereafter, he went to the place of incident and saw that the dead-body of the deceased was lying on the floor in bloodied condition. Daughter of the deceased, namely, Ku. Tulika Majumdar (PW-07) was sleeping in her bedroom and, on the direction of the police officials, he (Arun Kumar Benerjee) alongwith Falguni Bose (PW-09) took her out from the place of incident. The wife of the deceased, namely, Rooma Majumdar (A-1) was sitting in the house of another neighbour, namely, Deepak Kumar Verma (PW-01). The household articles were lying on the floor and doors of Almirah were opened.
(5) On the aforesaid report so lodged by Arun Kumar Ben
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence without corroboration can lead to acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
(1) All matters relating to crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel.(2) Appreciation of evi....
The prosecution must establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction, where mere suspicion cannot suffice, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be conclusive and consistent to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
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
