DILIP KUMAR MONDAL & ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 14-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 1 S.C.R. 907 
DILIP KUMAR MONDAL & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2015) 
JANUARY 14, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302134 - Allegation that PW-3, the 
brother of deceased was working with his sons PW-11 and 
PW-12 in his field - Deceased and his son PW-10 on bullock C 
cart crossed the field of appellants-accused to which 
appellants objected resulting in altercation - One appellant 
inflicted injuries in the abdomen of the deceased with the pasli 
and other appellant attacked him with a dau - When PW-10 
tried to rescue his father, he was also badly beaten by the D 
accused - PWs11 and 12 were also assaulted - Courts 
below convicted the appellant ulss.302134 - Held: The 
contradiction pointed out in the evidence of the witnesses and 
the discrepancies in the prosecution case were duly 
considered by the courts below -
The contradictions so 
E 
pointed out by the appellants did not create infirmity in the 
prosecution case - The defence plea that the false case was 
foisted on the accused due to political rivalry was not 
substantiated - On the evidence of injured witnesses and 
other, the courts below had correctly recorded concurrent F 
findings of fact that the appellants inflicted fatal injuries on the 
deceased -
The entire evidence and the facts and 
circumstances of the case showed that there was no 
premeditation on the part of the appellants and the incident 
was a sudden fight and the scuffle between the parties led to 
the causing of injuries to the deceased - Considering the G 
injuries, it cannot be said that accused took undue advantage 
of the situation - Offence fall u/s. 300 Exception 4 - Conviction 
of the appellants modified and altered to one u/s.304 Part I. 
907 
H 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, the court 
HELD: 1. The contention was raised by the defence 
that the details of attack with dau were not mentioned in 
the complaint. By and large, people cannot be expected 
8 
to have a photographic memory of the incident to recall 
the minute details of the incident. Immediately after the 
incident, PW-3 must have been under shock and in such 
disturbed mental condition, while he was narrating the 
incident to Pradhan of village to reduce the complaint into 
writing, PW-3 might have omitted to mention that second 
C appellant caused hurt to the deceased with dau. Such 
omission, would not affect the credibility of evidence of 
PW-3. Evidence of PW-11 amply corroborated the 
evidence of PWs 3 and 10. Evidence of injured witnesses 
PWs 10 and 11 lent credence to their testimony and their 
D evidence is entitled to great weight. Despite searching 
cross-examination, nothing substantial was elicited from 
PWs 10 and 11 to discredit their evidence. PW-6 who was 
doing agricultural work in his field had also stated that 
he had heard one jhamela and when he went to the place 
E of incident, a maramari took place. PW-6 had spoken 
about the overt act of each of the appellants and causing 
injuries to the deceased and others. The contradiction 
pointed out in the evidence of the witnesses and the 
discrepancies in the prosecution case were duly 
F 
considered by the courts below. [Paras 11 to 14] [913-E-
H; 914-F-H; 915-A-B] 
2. Having agreed with the findings of the courts 
below that the appellants inflicted fatal injuries on the 
body of the deceased, it is to be ascertained whether or 
G not it was a result of pre-meditation and whether the 
conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is 
sustainable. The accused persons were objecting to the 
entry of the bullock cart in their field and before the attack, 
there was a wordy altercation. The totality of the facts and 
H circumstances of the case showed that the incident was 
DILIP KUMAR MONDAL & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST 909 
BENGAL 
not a premeditated one. The accused had been objecting 
A 
to the ingress and egress of the bullock cart in their field 
and no sooner did the deceased try to enter their field, 
than a free fight ensued between the parties. Insofar as 
the contention of the prosecution, that the accused were 
already armed with deadly weapons to pounce upon the 
B 
deceased-complainant party, it appears to be not 
acceptable as the accused party were proceeding to their 
fields for carrying out their agricultural work and, 
therefore, it is quite normal for them to possess such 
agricultural instruments which are used a

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