LexGUIRAM MONDAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 1107
GUIRAM MONDAL
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
{Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2007)
APRIL 26, 2013
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
A
B
ss. 148 and 3021149- Double murder - Conviction of one c
accused only by trial court for causing death of one of the
deceased- High Court convicting the appellant and four others
- Held: High Court has correctly appreciated the evidence
rendered by witnesses - It rightly came to the conclusion that
trial court was completely in error by over-looking some crucial
0
and important evidence and placing much reliance on non-
mention of name of accused persons in inquest report - High
Court has rightly held the appellant guilty uls 302 read with
s. 148 and awarded him sentence of fife imprisonment -
Evidence - Evidence of related witnesses - Investigation -
E
Delay in despatch of special report to Magistrate.
INVEST/GA TION:
Inquest - Purpose of - Explained.
F
The appellant and other accused persons wer~
prosecuted for causing death of two persons, namely,
'AD' and 'SK'. The prosecution case was that the accused
persons took alongwith them the two victims and
assaulted them with deadly weapons causing their death.
PW1, the brother of 'AD', and other witnesses tried to G
save the victims but in vain and in the process PW1 was
shot by a pipe gun and he sustained injuries. The trial
court convicted A-3 for causing the death of 'AD' and
acquitted all other accused. However, on appeal, the High
1107
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A Court convicted the appellant alongwith four others while
maintaining the acquittal of others.
In the instant appeal, two other convicts had also
joined the appellant, but as they did not comply with
8 court's order for surrendering, the appeal with regard to
them was dismissed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 PW 1, the brother of deceased 'AD', who
c is also an injured eye-witness, has clearly and
unequivocally supported the prosecution case and
deposed about the manner in which the accused had
done away with the two deceased and his version is fully
corroborated by other eye-witnesses, PWs 2, 3, 4, 8 and
0 11. The specific part played by the various accused
persons, including the appellant, has been narrated by
these witnesses. The High Court has correctly
appreciated the evidence. [paras 7 and 8) [1113-D-E, H;
1114-A-B]
E
1.2 The High Court has held that the trial court was
completely in error by over-looking some crucial and
important evidence and in placing much reliance on non-
mention of name of accused persons in the inquest
report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to
F report regarding the cause of death, namely whether it is
suicidal, homicidal, accidental etc. and non-mention of
few accused persons therein is of no consequence.
[paras 9 and 10) [1114-D-G]
G
Pedda Narayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
1975 Suppl. SCR 84 = (1975) 4 SCC 153; Amar Singh v.
Ba/winder Singh and Others 2003 (1) SCR 754 = (2003) 2
SCC 518; Radha Mohan Singh@ Lal Saheb and Others v.
state of u.P. 2006 (1) SCR 519 = (2006) 2 sec 450 -
H referred to.
GUIRAM MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
1109
1.3 Merely because the FIR was placed before the
A
Magistrate three days after registration of FIR, it cannot
be said that the FIR was anti timed, anti dated and
fabricated. In fact, no question was put to the
Investigating Officer as to the cause of delay in sending
FIR to the Magistrate.[para 11] [1115-E-F]
B
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. S. Mohan Singh and
Another (2006) 9 SCC 272 • referred to.
1.4 Further, merely because a witness is a relative of
the deceased is not a reason for discarding his evidence.
C
Evidence of relatives can be acted upon if the court finds
that the evidence of such a witness is reliable and
trustworthy. Besides, PW2 was not a relative of deceased
'AD'. A close scrutiny of the evidence rendered by the
eye-witnesses clearly establishes the involvement of the
D
accused. Further, in their cross examination, there is no
serious contradiction, omission, infirmity, defect or
lacuna which can make their evidence unbelievable and
to make them untrustworthy witnesses. Their statements
have been fully corroborated by PW 12, the autopsy
E
surgeon, relating to the nature of injuries and places of
injuries on the person of the deceased. [para 13-14]
[1116-B-C, E-G]
Seeman @ Veeranam v. State by InspeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.