LexAMITAVA BANERJEE @ AMIT @ BAPPA BANERJEE versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 160 A AMITAVA BANERJEE @ AMIT @ BAPPA BANERJEE B v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No.1939 of 2008) AUGUST 17, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: s. 302 - Conviction under - Allegation against the accused that he strangulated and killed c the victim and buried his dead body - Trial court convicted the accused holding that although motive was not proved but circumstantial evidence was so strong and so unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the appellant that the absence of a motive did not make much of a difference - High Court 0 upheld the order of the trial court - On appeal, held: There were number of incriminating circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused viz. the deposition of mother of the victim that the victim wanted to go with th_e accused to fetch parrots as promised by the accused; victim having been last E seen with the accused near the place of incident around the time he was killed; recovery of cap worn by accused and his bicycle from near the place where dead body of the victim was buried; deposition of PW6 that the accused had borrowed the spade, tied it with 'Sutli' after wrapping the wooden part of the spade with the newspaper; presence of the newspaper near F the ditch where the victim was buried and the recovery of the 'Sutli' from around the neck of the victim where it had left a ligature mark were also telling circumstances which were explainable only on the hypothesis that the accused was the author of the crime - The circumstances were not only G established, but they formed a complete chain, that left no manner of doubt, that the crime with which the accused stood charged was committed by him and no one else - Conviction upheld. H 160 AMITAVA BANERJEE @AMIT @ BAPPA BANERJEE 161 v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL CRIMINAL LAW· Motive - Significance of, and effect of A ·its absence - Discussed. The prosecution case was that the appellant strangulated the victim-deceased to death and buried his dead body in jungle. The trial court convicted the appellant under s.ection 302 IPC. It held that although prosecution failed to prove the motive for murder of the victim, however, circumstantial evidence available on record was so strong and so unerringly pointed towards B the guilt of the appellant that the absence of a motive did C not make much of a difference. The High Court upheld the order of the trial court. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court . HELD: 1. Motive for the commission of an offence, no doubt, assumes greater importance in cases resting D on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of the offence is available. Yet failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. All that the absence of motive for the commission of the offence results in is that the court shall have to be more careful and circumspect in scrutinizing the evidence to ensure that suspicion does not take the place of proof while finding the accused guilty. Absence of motive in a case depending entirely on circumstantial evidence is a factor that shall no doubt weigh in favour of the accused, but what the Courts need to remember is that motive is a matter which is primarily known to the accused and which the prosecution may at times find difficult to G explain or establish by substantive evidence. Human nature being what it is, it is often difficult to fathom the real motivation behind the commission of a crime. [Para E F 27] [180-D-G] . H 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. A Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of WB. 1994 (2) SCC 220: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCC 498; Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 91: 1993 (1) SCR 260; Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 367: 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 740; Jagdish v. s State of M.P. 2009 (12) Scale 580; Mulakh Raj and Ors v. Satish Kumar and Ors. 1992 (3) SCC 43: 1992 (2) SCR 484 - relied on. 2. The deposition of the mother of the deceased, that the deceased wanted to go to the appellant to fetch two C parrots which the latter had promised, that after returning from the drawing tuition he went go to the appellant on getting a signal from him, sets the stage for drawing the deceased out of the house. He was shortly thereafter seen talking to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.