SUKUMARROY versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 908 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUKUMARROY 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Section 304 Part I rlw Section 34: 
Murder-Accused and his relatives attacked the deceased with weapons 
C causing his death-Trial Court found accused appellant and another guilty 
of committing offences under Section 304 Part-I rlw .Section 34 !PC and 
sentenced them accordingly-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: 
D 
E 
Injuries on the body of the deceased anti-mortem in nature-It is evident from 
the post-mortem report that death was caused due to the wound injwy which 
shows that the accused intended to kill or cause such bodily injwy as is 
likely to cause death-Evidence of eye-witnesses that the injury was caused 
by the accused is corroborated by the medical evidence-No evidence available 
on record to show that provocation/assault was caused by the deceased-
Hence, the conviction under Section 304 Part-I /PC r/w Section 34 !PC fully 
justified. 
On the fateful day, when the deceased was collecting seedling from his 
land, appellant, his father, wife and sister-in-law entered into the land with 
weapons in their hands. On the issue of ownership of the land, an altercation 
ensued between the parties. In the course of the altercation, one of the accused 
persons struck the deceased on his head with lathi and the accused-appellant 
F hit him with a bhali which pierced the abdomen of the deceased. On hearing 
hue and cry, the villagers gathered and took the deceased to a hospital, where 
he was declared dead. They also lodged an FIR in the Police Station. Police 
sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. On completion 
of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused persons under 
G Sections 147, 148, 149, 447/304 IPC was submitted by the Police. Trial Court 
found sufficient evidence against the accused and his father in committing 
th1~ crime. Both of them were convicted under Section 304 Part I read with 
Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 
The High Court upheld the conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
908 
SUKUMAR ROY v. STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
909 
The accused-appellant submitted that the deceased and his men A . 
assaulted him and his relatives; that the injury on the deceased was an 
accidental one; and that it was a case of self-defence as an altercation ensued 
between him and the deceased because of his entering into the land/field which 
was purchased by him from the deceased. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:t.I. From the facts it is evident that the deceased died an 
unnatural death which was homicidal due to injuries, which were anti mortem 
in nature, and it is the accused-appellant who inflicted injury upon the body 
of the deceased with bhali (ballam) causing his death. (912-C) 
B 
c 
1.2. From the post-mortem report, it is evident that the deceased died 
due to the wound in his abdomen which was 4 inches deep. This shows the 
intention of the assailant to kill or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to 
cause death. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution 
witnesses that it was the appellant who caused the injury on the deceased. D 
The prosecution evidence of the eye-witnesses is corroborated by the medical 
evidence. (913-C) 
1.3. From the evidence it is clear that the deceased and his men were 
unarmed and there was no provocation on their part. It also seems that the 
deceased and the appellant are co-sharers in the land. There is no evidence E 
on record to show that the deceased and his men assaulted the appellant and 
his family members. Hence, the conviction under Section 304 Part I read with 
Section 34 IPC was fully justified. (913-E, F) 
1.4. It is well settled that minor unexplained injuries on accomplice will 
not help the case of the accused. Moreover, the nature of alleged injuries on p 
the body of the wife and sister-in-law of the accused-appellant has neither been 
stated by them nor have any injury reports of any doctor been produced, and 
no doctor has been examined as a witness in support of such injuries. 
(913-F, G) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. I 101 of G 
2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2005 of the High Court 
of Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 5/1998. 
N.R. Choudhary and Somnath Mukherjee for the Appellant. 
H 
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Radha Rangaswamy for the Respondents. 
T

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