LexSURESH CHANDRA JANA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 1 SURESH CHANDRA JANA V. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of2008) AUGUST 11,2017 [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.J Penal Code, 1860: S. 302 - Acid attack - Death due to burn injuries - Earlier. victim had been allegedly raped by accused 'P' - During pendency A B c of rape case, 'P' and one 'R 'allegedly threw acid at the victim - Her neighbours took her to the hospital - Neither any written complaint was filed to police, nor anyone from the hospital informed the police about the incident - Victim requested PW-7 to write her complaint and send the same to the police by registered post - Victim succumbed D to the burn injuries and died - No dying declaration was recorded - Thereajier, case u!s.302 was registered - In rape proceedings, P · was acquitted by trial Court as victim was no more alive to adduce evidence - However. in proceeding uls.302, trial court convicted both the accused and sentenced 'P · to death and 'R · to R.l. for life - Reference to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence was rejected - Further, conviction of both 'P' and 'R 'was set aside - On appeal. held: High Court adopted a casual approach in appreciating the facts. circumstances and evidence of the case - High Court allowed itself to be swayed by the fact that the FIR was delayed by 23 days hut failed to appreciate the fact that the victim. had a moron husband and two little kids at home. and none of them were able to go to police station and get FIR recorded - She had to request PW-7 to write down her complaint and sent it to police by registered post - Jn the circumstances, delay in lodging the FIR is fully explained - Death of the victim on account of burn injuries due to acid attack was well corroborated from the statement of the doctors (PW-6 and PW-8) - Statement given by victim in the FIR scribed by PW-7, should have been treated as her dying declaration - The victim specifically memioned in her report about the motive part of 'P ·. who allegedly raped her and that case was pending - It is not correct approach to simply pick up the minor lapses of the E F G H 2 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R. investigation and acquit accused. particularly when the ring of truth is undisturbed,- High Court erred in holding ·p- not guilty - However. 'R ·had no motive to commit the crime. nor it can be said that he had common intention with 'P · to cause burn injuries with acid on victim - View of the High Court to hold 'R ·not guilty cannot be said to he erroneous - Crime against Women. s. 302 - Murder - Two possible views - Accused 'P 'contended that where two views are possible and the courts below have taken different views, the view favouring the accused should be accepted - Held: Insofar the view taken by the High Court in not holding accused •p · gµilty is concerned, the same is not reasonably possible view. for the reason that it is against the weight of the evidence on record ignoring completely the circumstances in which the victim reported the matter to police. with the help of a stranger and her statement in the FIR is fully corroborated, apart from medical evide~ce on record. s. 302 - Murder - Reasonable doubt - It is not every doubt but only a reasonable doubt of which benefit can be given to the accused - A doubt of a timid mind which is afraid of logical consequences, cannot be said to be reasonable doubt - ff the benefits of all kinds of doubts raised on beha!f of the accused are accepted. it will result in deflecting the course ofjustice - The cherished principles of golden thread of proof of reasonable doubt which runs through web of law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. Code o.f Criminal Procedure. 1973 - s.313 - Accused contended that the evidence recorded in trial Court was not properly put Jo the accused uls.3 I 3 - Held: In instant case, the Court has complied with the provisions of s.313 - Suh-section (h) of s.3 I 3 requires the court to question the accused generally on the case after prtlsel~ttion evidence is over - It does not require that each and every sentence of the prosecution evidence has to be re-1vritten anal read over once again vvhile exa1nining the accused u!s.313 of Cr.PC. Adminz:stration of Justice - Administration of Criminal Justice - Wol/ian allegedly raped by ·p' - During the pendency of the r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.