DEBAPRIYA PAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 11-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(2017] 1 S.C.R. 566 
DEBAPRIYA PAL 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 623 of2013) 
JANUARY 11,2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 - Double murder -
Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution case was that Al had love 
affair with deceased-girl which was objected by deceased-mother 
who advised her daughter to severe relationship with A-1 and 
deceased-girl parted the company of A-1 - A-1 was angry with this 
move and he with his friend-appellant committed murder of mother 
and daughter - Both the accused made disclosure statements which 
led to certain recoveries - Courts below convicted A-1 and appellant 
on the basis of depositions of witnesses and recoveries - Supreme 
Court upheld the conviction of A-1 - In case of appellant, held: 
Matching of blood group on the blood stained clothes of the 
appellant recoveredfrom his house and recovery of laptop belonging 
to the sister of the deceased would not itself indicate that appellant 
was responsible for commission of crime - These were neither 
weapon of crime nor have any connection with the commission of 
crime - Under s.27 of the Evidence Act only so much of recovery, 
as a result of the disclosure statement, which directly pertains to the 
commission of crime is relevant - Otherwise, such an evidence is 
barred uls.2 5 of the Evidence Act -. Jn the absence of any motive on 
the part of the appellant, weak linkage of his alleged friendship 
with Al and hardly any circumstance clinching to point accusing 
finger on the appellant, he is given benefit of doubt as his culpability 
was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt -
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.25, 27. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the only reason 
given is that he was a friend of Al and that is why he joined Al in 
commission of the said crime. The testimonies of the witnesses 
on this particular aspect are not very strong inasmuch as the 
H 
nature of friendship and the thickness of such friendship has not 
566 
DEBAPRIYA PAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
come on record. One of the witnesses stated in a cursory manner 
that he had seen the appellant in the company of Al on certain 
occasions. There are three circumstances which weighed with 
the trial court to convict the appellant. These are: recovery of 
blood stained clothes of the appellant from his house on his 
disclosure statement; recovery of laptop belonging to the sister 
of the deceased from the house of the appellant with cushion 
cover; finger prints of the appellant on the cello tape which was 
found in the house of the deceased. Mere matching of the blood 
group on the blood stained clothes, which was even on the bed 
sheet, would not lead to the conclusion that it is the appellant 
who had committed the crime. Same reasoning goes with the 
recovery of laptop as well. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 
only so much of recovery, as a result of the disclosure statement, 
which directly pertains to the commission of crime is relevant. 
Otherwise, such an evidence is barred under Section 25 of the 
Evidence Act. In the absence of any motive on the part of the 
appellant, weak linkage of his alleged friendship with Al and hardly 
any circumstance clinching to point accusing finger on the 
appellant, the appellant should have been given the benefit of 
doubt as his culpability has not been proved by the prosecution 
beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 10] [569-E-H; 570-A, 
E-G; 571-F-G] 
Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra 
(1969) 2 SCC 872 : 1970 (2) SCR 332 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
1970 (2) SCR 332 
relied on 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 623 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2011 of the High Court 
of Calcutta in C.R. A. No. 258 of2009. 
Pradip Ghosh, Sr.Adv., Rauf Rahim, Ms. Poulami Das Dey, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
Mrinal Kanti Manda!, PanJat Sinha, Ad vs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. K. SIKRl, J. I. We have h.:a;\:i learned counsel for the parties 
at length. 
567 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
568 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
2. For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to state the 
facts of the matter in detail. Suffice it to state that the appellant was 
charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as '

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.