LexSADANANDA MONDAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013] 7 S.C.R. 854 SADANANDA MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 2009) AUGUST 05, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] PENAL CODE, 1860: C s. 302134 - Death of victim by gunshot injury - Out of 14 accused, 13 acquitted by counts below - Conviction of appellant and sentence of life imprisonment - Held: Out of the two brothers of deceased, evidence of one was disbelieved by High Court as he made inconsistent statements u/s 161 o Cr.P. C. and before court - The other brother introduced names of other accused persons whom he did not name in FIR - There was also no explanation as to the discrepancy in the father's name of appellant, though he was a neighbour - Besides, there was no recovery of gun used in the crime E or of any pellet - Courts below, having disbelieved the entire case of prosecution as regards 13 out of 14 accused, on the basis of the same evidence should not have convicted the appellant when there was no clinching evidence or incriminating circumstance against him - Further, appellant F did not abscond, which fact proves his defence that he has nothing to do with the crime - Prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence imposed on appellant, set aside. The appellant was prosecuted along with 13 others G for causing the death of the brother of PW1. The prosecution case was that during a picnic, a dispute arose between some of the persons on the accused side on the one hand and the complainant party on the other, which was settled by the intervention of mediators. H 854 SADANANDA MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST 855 BENGAL However, when the complainant party reached near the A house of appellant's father, the appellant came out of the house and fired at the brother of PW1. The injured was taken to the hospital, where he died on the following day. The trial court convicted 6 accused u/s 302/34 IPC. The High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of B the appellant and acquitted the other 5 convicts. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. From the evidence of PW-1, it is seen that the appellant is the next door neighbour of the deceased. C This witness introduced the names of other accused persons whom he did not name in the FIR. PW-2 turned hostile. PW-3, another younger brother of the deceased, though deposed before the court that he saw that the appellant fired a shot at the deceased, the Investigating D Officer, PW-12, admitted in his cross-examination that PW-3 had not stated anything in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. In such circumstance, no weightage need be given to his statement made in the court. The High Court itself has rightly concluded that his evidence is unreliable. E [Para 8) [861-B-E] 1.2. The courts below, having disbelieved the entire case of the prosecution as regards 13 out of 14 accused persons, on the basis of the same evidence, should not F have convicted the appellant when there was no other cogent and convincing evidence or incriminating circumstance against him. The High Court committed an error in convicting him solely on the basis of the evidence of PW-1, who was one of the brothers of the deceased when the other brother viz., PW-3 did not corroborate him. G [Para 10) [861-G-H; 862-A] 1.3. Admittedly, there was no recovery of the alleged weapon used in the incident. The pellet alleged to have emanated from the gun also was not recovered. There H 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. A was also no explanation as to the discrepancy in the father's name of the appellant and the de facto complainant being a neighbour of the appellant could not have made such a vital mistake. Another important circumstance which goes against the case of prosecution B is the conduct of the accused. He was very well available before and after the incident and did not abscond which factor proves his defence that he has nothing to do with the crime. [Para 11-12] [862-C-F] c 1.4. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt even against the appellant and he is also entitled to the benefit of doubt along with the other accused. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside. [Para D 13] [862-F-H] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1555 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2008 of the E High Court at Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.