LexMONIRUDDIN AHMED @ LALU DEALER & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 776 A MONIRUDDIN AHMED @ LALU DEALER & ORS. B v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 272 OF 2007) MAY 10, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Accused persons, carrying deadly weapons, chased the informant and his associates - C Death of one person - Conviction of accused-appellants by trial Court - Upheld by High Court - Justification of - Held: Justified - Four prosecution witnesses narrated the incident in the same manner - High Court rightly observed that though the witnesses did not place their medical reports about their D injuries, their presence at the spot could not be doubted and rightly believed their version - Presence of the appellants at the scene of occurrence was established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence - Plea of alibi by appellant no. 1 not substantiated - Absolute evidence E indicated he was not only at the spot but also caused the death of the victim by a fatal blow with spear. According to the prosecution, the appellants and few others, armed with deadly weapons such as spears, axes, bombs etc., launched an attack on the informant and his F associates, causing death of one person. Placing reliance upon the statements of the eye- witnesses and the post-mortem report, the trial Court convicted 12 accused persons including the appellants G u/ss.148 and 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of appellants u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. H 776 MONIRUDDIN AHMED @ LALU DEALER & ORS. v. 777 STATE OF WEST BENGAL In this Court, it was contended by the appellants that A the prosecution had not established their guilt beyond doubt. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Among the eye-witnesses present at the 8 spot, PW7 who sustained injuries in the incident narrated that the appellants and many others chased him and his associates on seeing them. Frightened by their aggressive look, PW7 and other witnesses started fleeing towards the field. He further asserted that he noticed C appellant no.1 and another accused throwing bombs towards them. One of the bombs struck the deceased, as a result he fell down on the ground in the field. At that time, all the appellants and other accused surrounded him and appellant no.1 struck him with a 'pathtangi', the D other accused persons also assaulted him·with 'lathi', 'henso' and 'bollom'. [Para 6) [781-H; 782-A-C] 1.2. The other injured witness PW8 also narrated the incident as explained by PW7. According to him, on seeing the aggressive mood of the accused, he and his associates escaped through paddy fields. When they were on the move, he saw appellant no.1 and another accused throwing bombs towards the deceased. As explained by PW7, PW8 also informed the Court that on encircling appellant no.1 struck the deceased with a spear, another accused delivered a blow on him with a 'pathtangi'. In the same manner, as explained by PWs7 and 8, PW9 referred to the involvement of the appellants and others, their overt act and the weapons used by them. He also testified that by the merciless act of the G appellants, ultimately, it resulted in death of the victime. [Para 7) [782-D-F] E F 1.3. Another witness relied on by the prosecution is PW 12. He was also present at the spot. Like PWs 7, 8 H 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R. A and 9, he also narrated the incident how the accused chased and ultimately caused the death of the victim. As rightly observed by the High Court, though the above- said witnesses did not place their medical reports about their injuries, their presence at the spot cannot be B doubted and it rightly believed their version. An analysis of the prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the fatal blow with spear was delivered by appellant no.1. It is also clear that the appellants and others chased the deceased with deadly weapons in their hands. Among the several c accused, the role played by the appellants had been analysed by the High Court and it rightly concluded that the appellants alone were responsible and confirmed their conviction and sentence. On perusal and analysis of the evidence of PWs 7, 8, 9 and 12, it is clear that the 0 prosecution established the charge against the appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 of IPC. Though appellant no.Hook the plea of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.