LexSUJOY SEN @ SUJOY KR. SEN versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SUJOY SEN @ SUJOY KR. SEN v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL MAY 8, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; s. 302: Murder-Accused allegedly committed murder of daughter of first C informant by throttling her neck-FIR-Investigation conducted by CJD.- Charge-sheet-Trial Court found accused guilty of committing offence of murder com•icted and sentenced him under Section 302 !PC-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: It is a case of circumstantial evidence-Jn such a case prosecution has to establish chain of circumstances which D inevitably connect the accused to crime-Jn case link breaks, the whole prosecution case collapse-Jn FIR informant/father of the deceased stated that accused entered in his house in his absence-However, in his evidence before the trial Court, he has stated that accused was leaving his house when · he was entering into it-Statement of PW4, a neighbour of the deceased, that he saw the accused entering into the house cannot be believed as he hds not E stated that fact in his statement to the Police recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.-Thus the first informant never saw the accused leaving his house when he was entering into and his subsequent version is an improvement- A vital link in the chain of circumstances missing-The prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime beyond F reasonable doubt-Under the circumstances, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt-Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973-s. 161-Evidence- Circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day at about 11.30 hrs., when the deceased, the only daughter of the first informant, was alone in her G residence, accused-appellant committed her murder by throttling her neck. The informant, father of the deceased when returned to his house early noticing his daughter lying on the floor of a room, he became suspicious of the situation and raised hue and cry. The victim was taken to a Hospital where she was declared dead by the attending doctor. An FIR was lodged by the father of the 1 deceased and after the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by C.I. D. v< H JU ) _ ..... ~ '-· SUJOY SEN @SUJOY KR. SEN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 113 against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court found accused A guilty of committing the crime under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. This is a case of circumstantial evidence, and it is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to establish the chain of circumstances which inevitably connect the accused to the crime. Even if a single link breaks, the whole prosecution case collapses. [Para 7) (115-C-D) 1.2. In the FIR, the first informar.t stated that the accused entered into the house of the first informant during his absence. Thus, according to the FIR version, the first informant never saw the accused leaving his house when he was entering into it. It is only subsequently in his evidence before the trial Court he has stated that the accused was leaving the house of the first informant when he was entering into the house. [Para 8) (115-D-F) 1.3. PW4, a neighbour, stated in his evidence that he saw the accused entering into the house of the informant at 12 noon, but he has thereafter stated that he did not state before the Police that he saw the accused entering into the said house. Thus the statement of PW4 that he saw the accused entering into the house of the first informant father of the deceased, cannot be believed as he had not stated that fact in his statement to the Police recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Similarly, PW7 in his deposition stated that he saw the accused coming down from the door steps of the house of the first informant at the relevant time and he heard the informant say "Sujoy ki Korli". However, subsequently in his deposition, he stated that he had not stated before the Police that PW4 disclosed to him that he saw the accused entering into the house of the first informant. [Paras 9 and 10] [115-F-H; 116-A-B) 1.4. It appears that the appellant was implicated only on the strong suspicion on the part of the first informant against him. It has come in evidence that the appellant, who is a young man, use
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.