KALPANA MAZUMDAR versus STA TE OF ORI SSA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 30-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

KALPANA MAZUMDAR 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF ORI SSA 
JULY 30, 2002 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 364, 302 and 201-Kidnapping and 
murder-Death sentence-Sessions Judge holding accused persons guilty C 
imposing death penalty-High Court confirming the same-On appeal held, 
prosecution case rested entirely on testimony of a prosecution witness without 
any corroboration of his testimony on any of the material aspects, thus it is 
difficult to corifirm conviction of the accused persons-Further if such sole 
testimony is not relied upon there is no evidence to connect the accused 
persons except one with the comn1ission of offence-Hence all other accused D 
given benefit of doubt-Conviction of that one accused converted from death 
penalty to life imprisonment. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 114-Presurnptive evidence-Accused 
persons kidnapping and committing murder-One of the accused apprehended 
red handed while disposing of the dead body, making extra judicial confession E 
to the prosecution witnesses, said confession recorded in FIR-lleld, these 
circumstances are presumptive evidence of charge of murder against accused. 
According to the prosecution, appellants-accused persons kidnapped 
and committed brutal murder of a young child with a view to offer human 
sacrifice to appease deities. They did so on the asking of a tantrik, who F 
told them that as a result of a human sacrifice Al would get a gold pot, 
A2 would be blessed with a son A3 was to get cash amount. PW 14 an 
employee of Al deposed having seen the entire incident. PW7 claimed to 
be a eye-witness having seen A3 throwing the body of his deceased nephew 
and caught him red handed. Further A3 made extra judicial confession G 
before the prosecution witnesses. Sessions Judge held the appellants-
accused persons guilty under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with 34 !PC 
and sentenced them to death. High Court confirmed the death penalty. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that their conviction is unsustainable as it is H 
299 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A based on the sole testimony of an accomplice alone without any 
corroboration and it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony 
of PW14 and if it is discarded there would be no evidence to connect the 
appellant-accused with the offences; that the deposition of PWt 4 on 
material aspects is not corroborated; and that the circumstance of 
B throwing of.dead body of deceased by A3 can only lead to A3's conviction 
for offence under Section 201 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The deposition of PW14 makes it clear that he was a 
witness to all the events up to the killing of the boy. He stated that he was 
C given a torch to watch if anybody was coming near the place of occurrence. 
This shows that he was deputed to keep watch when the four accused were 
killing the boy, in the manner deposed by him. He is said to be doing all 
this on account of fear and also on account of his being an employee of 
Al. He did not narrate the incident to anyone for 19 days even when he 
D was away to his village. Without going into the question whether PW14 
was an accomplice or not, it is not safe to connect the appellants on the 
sole testimony of PW-14. Further, it is also to be borne in mind that 
investigation of the case has been most tardy and unsatisfactory. Despite 
the fact that PW14 deposed about the tongue of the boy being cut and 
PW7 deposed that the tongue, hair and nail of the boy were found in the 
E 
house of A2, neither those articles were seized nor it was explained as to 
what has happened to the said articles. Moreover, the medical evidence 
does not support the cutting of the tongue. (305-F-H; 306-A-BJ 
1.2. The age of A2 was more than 70. It was not explained whether 
A2 had a child or not and besides the testimony of PW14 what was the 
F 
material to substantiate the motive attributed to him that he wanted a child 
for which he became party to the sacrifice of the boy on the asking of the 
tantrik. It is also not explained as to what was the inter-connection between 
Al and A2. There is nothing on record to show that either they were 
friends or relatives; nor how they became common parties to the sacrifice 
G of one human being, one in lurement of a golden pot and other a son. None 
of these aspects were enquired into. Further the age of A4 the daughter 
of A3, was about 17 year

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