NIRANJAN PANJA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 14-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 113 
NIRANJAN PANJA 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2005) 
MAY 14, 2010 
[V. S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, 
JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Circumstantial 
evidence - Motive alleged - Conviction by courts below C 
relying on circumstances of the case including discovery of 
the weapon of offence and applying the theory of 'last seen 
together' - On appeal, held: Conviction not justified - The 
circumstances relied on for passing conviction order are 
inconsequential - Discovery of weapon of offence cannot be D 
relied upon as the same was not produced before the court -
Motive which is an important circumstance, not proved -
Conviction cannot be based on theory of 'last seen together' 
as the prosecution failed to establish the time of death. 
Appellant-accused, alongwith co-accused was E 
prosecuted uls. 302 rlw. s. 201 IPC for having caused 
death of one person. The prosecution case was based 
on circumstantial evidence. Trial court convicted the 
appellant-accused uls. 302 IPC while acquitting the co-
accused. High Court confirmed the conviction. 
F 
In appeal to this court appellant-accused contended 
that majority of the circumstances, on the basis of which 
conviction order was passed, could not be viewed as 
incriminating circumstances; that despite the discovery 
of the weapon of offence, the same was never produced G 
before the court, nor was it identified by the witnesses. 
0 
The State contended that there was motive for 
commission of the offence in asmuch as there was 
113 
H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A enemity between the accused and the deceased; and 
that it was the accused who was last seen together with 
the deceased. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
8 
HELD: 1. There is hardly any evidence in this case 
much less a clinching one to believe the theory that the 
accused had committed the murder. Both, the judgment 
of the trial court as well as the appellate court are 
incorrect judgments. In this case, the prosecution has 
C utterly failed to prove that the accused has committed the 
murder of the deceased. The circumstances relied on by 
the High Court for convicting the accused are 
inconsequential. The circumstances were totally 
innocuous and suspicious. [Paras 9, 16 and 17] [123-G; 
D 127-D-E] 
2. The High Court has c1ccepted the evidence on the 
recovery of the so-called wea·pon. The said discovery 
cannot at all be relied upon in the absence of the weapon 
being produced before the court. Again, the High Court 
E has also commented upon the medical evidence of the 
Medical Officer (PW-11) when he spoke about the injuries 
upon the dead body being possible by Siuli Katari. In the 
absence of Siuli Katari being seen by the doctor in the 
court, this evidence should have been discarded. It 
F seems that the so-called weapon of the offence was lost. 
The High Court had also expressed its displeasure and 
directed that the circumstances under which the said 
weapon was lost should be informed to the court and 
also as to who was responsible for the loss of the material 
weapon. There are no traces about the same. [Para t1] 
G [123-8-Ej 
3. The question of motive has not been considered 
by the High Court at all. The so-called motive as deposed 
by PW-1 was that the accused used to speak against the 
H deceased after the deceased stopped looking after his 
NIRANJAN PANJA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
115 
litigation. It appears that the deceased used to look after A 
the litigation of number of persons and that was probably 
his profession. It cannot be said that merely because the 
deceased had stopped looking after the litigation of the 
accused, the ace-used had any strong motive much less 
to commit murder of the deceased. Motive is an important 
B 
circumstance in the prosecution which is based on 
circumstantial evidence. However, there is no such 
strong motive on the part of the appellant. [Para 10] [123-
G-H; 124-A-B] 
4. PW-1 had suggested in his evidence that on the 
C 
fateful day in the evening he saw his father (the 
deceased) at a tea-stall along with the accused and the 
three other persons. Most of these witnesses, barring PW-
3 have not been examined in this case. Again, it will be 
very inconsequential even if the accused was in the 
D 
company of the deceased as there were number of other 
persons also who were having tea. PW-1 then said that 
he learnt from PW-3 that, thereafter, all of them went 

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