LexBIPIN KUMAR MONDAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 8 S.C.R. 1036 BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2008) JULY 26, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 323 - Murder - Appellant stabbing his wife and son to death - PW-1, the other son while C trying to intervene also sustaining injuries - Conviction ul ss. 302 and 323 - Challenged - Held: There was nothing to show that PW-1 had any reason to rope his father into such gruesome murder - Evidence of PW-1 was natural, probable and convincing - The other witnesses who were close relatives D and neighbours and reached the spot after hearing the shouts of PW-1, also supported the prosecution case - Ocular evidence was duly supported by post mortem report - Courts below were right in ordering conviction based on the testimony of a single witness since the evidence was cogent and E credible - Absence of motive would not dislodge the prosecution case as there was direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the commission of crime - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 134 - Witness - Sole witness. Criminal law: Motive - Held: Becomes totally irrelevant F when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding commission of the crime - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 323. The prosecution case was that PW-1 lodged an G Ejahar stating that his father (appellant) came to their house on the fateful night and attacked his mother and the younger brother with a knife. When PW-1 tried to save his mother, he was also attacked and he received injuries H 1036 BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1037 BENGAL on his head and hands. The appellant ran away. Both A the victims died on the spot. The neighbours reached the place of incident on hearing the shouts of PW-1. The trial court held that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant under Section 302 and Section 323 IPC. The High Court B affirmed the order of conviction. The order of conviction was challenged in the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Ejahar lodged by PW-1 giving full C details of the commission of the offence and naming his father as the person who committed the offences was written by PW-10. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW-10, it became evident that he was an independent witness residing in another village and could not have any 0 grudge to support the case of the prosecution by deposing falsely. [Para 11] [1044-G-H; 1045-A] 1.2. The conduct of PW-1 remained very natural, probable and convincing. No reason came forward in his cross-examination as to why he would depose against his father. There was no suggestion by PW-1 that he was E F not sure as to who had committed the offence, as in his cross-examination, he denied such suggestion stating that it was not a fact that he told the name of the assailant as his father by suspicion. The other witnesses who were close relatives and neighbours of the appellant supported the prosecution case. PW-2 deposed that he reached the place of occurrence at about mid-night when PW-1 shouted and on enquiry from PW-1, he learnt that his mother and brother were murdered by his father with G a sharp cutting knife. PW-1 was also injured on ·his head and hands. PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW~7 and PW-8 al_so deposed to the same effect. All these witnesses were cross-examined but there was nothing to show that any H 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A part of their depositions could be doubted. There was nothing on record to show that there could be any reason for PW-1, a son, to falsely implicate and rope his father into such a gruesome murder or the other witnesses, who had been so close relatives and B neighbours of the appellant, would support the prosecution case. The defence did not even make a suggestion to PW-1, that he was not injured by the appellant with a knife. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, cannot be ignored. However, as the prosecution failed to c produce any evidence to the effect that PW-1 remained admitted in public health centre, that part of the evidence was ignored by the trial court as well as by the High Court. The witnesses were natural and most probable and their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after the 0 commission of crime was expected, being close relatives and neighbours. No reason could be given as to why such close relations of the appel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.