LexHARU GHOSH versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 847 HARU GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 1173 of 2008) AUGUST 27, 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 326 - Murder of a woman and her young child and also attempt to murder a man aged 60 years - Conviction u/ss.302, 307,326 - Award of C death sentence as also rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence punishable uls. 307 and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for offence punishable uls. 326 - Upheld by High Court - On appeal held: Direct evidence of eye witnesses describing ~ murderous attack on victim, Thus, courts below rightly held o the accused guilty for offence punishable uls.307 - Conviction \ u/s. 326 not required and thus, set aside - Not a case of pre meditated murder - Accused acted in a spur of moment - Also accused has two minor children - Death sentence not confirmed - Accused to remain in jail for minimum 35 years E - Sentence/Sentencing. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant- ;. accused u/s.302 IPC for committing the murder of A, aged 30 years and her son S, aged 12 years and ulss.307, 326 IPC for attempt to murder J, aged 60 years. It awarded F death sentence to the appellant on account of the murder of A and S, and also imposed rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence punishable uls. 307 IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable u/s.326 IPC. High Court upheld the order. G ~· ·..C Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court 847 H 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. There is voluminous evidence in respect ...... ,.-4. of both the incidents, namely, the murder of A and S and ".- the attempt to commit murder of J. The witnesses S-PW- 1, PW-2, PW-8, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 were all .;._ ' neighbouring witnesses. All these witnesses graphically ~ described the murderous attack by the appellant-accused ~ B on S and A. In the cross-examination nothing has come from these witnesses which would render the evidence suspicious in any manner. [Para 6] [857-8-C; G] --1 ... , 1.2. From the evidence of the doctor-PW-18, who c performed the post-mortem on the body of A, it is clear that the appellant had no other intention but to commit murder. A had suffered as many as six injuries referable to the sharp cutting weapon on the most vital parts of her body like neck. The other two injuries were on her thigh ~-- D and left knee joint. S had suffered 10 injuries on the ~ equally vital parts of the body like head, right eye, face, shoulders, and right arm. His wrist of the right hand was - separated from the hand completely. Thus, the appellant- accused was rightly found guilty of murdering these two E helpless and defenceless persons apparently for no fault on their part. [Para 7] [857-H; 858-A-C] 1.3. The submission that appellant was on inimical terms with the witnesses and, therefore, the witnesses ~ F had falsely implicated him, is unsustainable as there does -- not seem to be any enmity brought out on the cross- examination of these witnesses. Therefore, even if there " was enmity between the parties then that would bring a clear cut evidence of the motive. [Para 8] [858-0-E] G 1.4. The evidence of witnesses PW-10 and PW-12 which was corroborated by other witnesses PW-26, PW- )-- -1 29, PW-30, PW-17 and PW-27 clearly brings out that the appellant, immediately after murdering A and S assaulted J. The evidence of J is seen along with the medical H HARU GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 849 > evidence regarding the injuries and there is no doubt A . ""' ., about the correctness of the findings reached by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The assault on J was so severe that he lost one of his fingers, being right I hand index finger. The trial court and the appellate court <(. correctly concluded that the accused is guilty for the B offence ·-punishable u/s. 307 IPC. In fact, on that count it was ·not necessary for the trial court to additionally ; ..... ~ convict him for the offence u/s. 326 IPC. That part dealing with the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.326 IPC is set aside. [Para 9] (858-F-H; 859-A-C] c 2.1. There cannot be a straightjacket formula dep(!nding on the number of murders committed or the manner in which the murder was committed or that the ""' appell_ant was already undergoing the sentence of rigoro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.