LexPRABIR MONDAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R. 495 PRABIR MONDAL AND ANR. A v. ~ ~ ,,,, STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 1974 of 2009) OCTOBER 28, 2009 B [ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] ~ Penal Code, 1860: ss.307134 - Conviction under - Accused allegedly attacked complainant with a knife and tried c to cut his throat - Deposition of complainant that he tried to save himself and in the process sustained injuries on palm - Conviction under ss.307134 by courts below - On appeal, held: Injury report showed that complainant did not have incised injury on palm but only a bruise which could be D • caused with a blunt instrument - Knife and mat with blood stains not sent for forensic examination - Delay in lodging ,. FIR - Chances of fabrication not ruled out - Prosecution case improbable, thus conviction set aside. Prosecution case was that while complainant was E sleeping in a pump room, appellant No.1 pressed his mouth with his hand and one MD held two ends of a knife to cut the throat of the complainant. The complainant 1 deposed that he caught hold of the middle portion of the ~ knife with both hands and on account of this he F sustained cut injuries on the palm of his left hand. He also sustained injuries on his cheeks. The trial Court convicted the appellants and MD under ss.307/34 IPC. High Court affirmed the same. Hence the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court ~- HELD: The case made out by the prosecution appears to be improbable and the conviction of the 495 H 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A appellants was not in conformity with the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The manner in ,_ :_ which the alleged incident took place does not fit in with the injuries received by the complainant. The most glaring inconsistency is the story of the complainant's having B held the blade of the knife, alleged to be used in the c,ommission of the offence, with both hands and thereby ')-c suffering incised injuries on his left palm. The injury report :1 showed that the complainant did not have any incised injury or any other injury on his left palm and the injury c to his right palm was not of an incised nature, but a ~ t- bruise which could have been caused by a blunt instrument. Moreover, the knife, which was seized and ·, was alleged to have been used for the commission of the '} offence, was never sent for forensic examination so as D to connect it with the offence. Furthermore, the other ) sharp-cutting implements, which were also seized, were also not sent for such examination. Even the mat which ~ had blood stains on it was not sent for such examination 'i __,_ ' and it could, therefore, not be proved as to whether the , E blood stains thereon were of human or animal origin. Coupled with that was the fact that on going to the ..... hospital· in the night for medical treatment, the complainant did not even disclose to the doctor as to ; how ·he had sustained the injuries. The doctor was, therefore, notat'allaware of any such incident. There was ' F delay in lodging \the FIR after consultation with the local -! villagers. Therefore, chances of fabrication in the FIR cannot be ruled out. Neither the Trial Court, nor the High c·ourt,· appeared to have looked into these details properly. The judgment of conviction and sentence G imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court ~- are set aside. [Paras 17, 19 and 20] (502-F-H; 503-A-F] ; Raje'evah· v. State of Kera/a 2003 3 SCC 355, referred -.+ ta:· .... .t·· H ' . > .J. .- PRABIR MONDAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST 497 BENGAL Case Law Reference: A 2003 3 sec 355 referred to Para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1974 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 30.6.2008 of the High Court of judicature at Calcutta in C.R.A.No. 343 of 1987. Pradip Ghosh, Pijush K. Roy, Mithilesh Kumar Singh for the Appellants. Satish Vig for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. B c D. 2. The appellants herein and one Mongal Das were tried · for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No.2 of March 1987 arising out of a First Information Report lodged with Berhampore Police Station in the District of Murshidabad, West Bengal. The E learned Sessions Judge convicted the three accused under Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.