TAMA @ TAMAL MAL versus STA TE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 11-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

TAMA @ TAMAL MAL 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 
IS.B. SINHA AND H.S. HEDI, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 302-Murder caused by stabbing a knife on chest of victim- C 
Conviction-Plea that in view of failure of 1.0. to collect blood stained earth. 
and recover the weapon of murder, conviction was liable to be set aside-
Held, when testimonies of two eyewitnesses had been believed by trial court 
as also by High Court, there is no reason to differ with their findings-The 
fact whether blood stains collected from place of occurrence by l 0. had been 
sent for chemical examination or not pales into insignificance-Similarly, D 
whether knife was recovered or not is also not of much importance-
lnvestigation-Injirmities in-Effect of 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1228 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.2006 of the High Court of 
Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of2002. 
Anil Kumar Karnwal (A.C.) and Altaf Hussain for the Appellant. 
Tara Chandra Sharma and Kishan Datta for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
E 
F 
Leave granted. 
G 
Sole appellant is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the 
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6.3.2006 passed by a Division 
Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 191/2002 whereby 
and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment 
917 
II 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A of conviction <ind sentence dated 1.2.2002 passed by the Additional District 
& Sessions Judge, Jangipur, Murshidabad, in Sessions Case No. 49/99/Sessions 
Trial No. 3 of 2000, convicting the appellant for commission of offence under 
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous 
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, was dismissed. 
B 
The occurrence took place at about 1.30 p.m. on 29th September, 1990 
in a village known as Jindighi in the District ofMurshidabad. The case of the 
prosecution is t~at the deceased Alimat alias Aliul Zaman, younger brother 
of the first inforrnat Badiujjaman (PW-I), along with one Samir Seikh (PW-2) 
had gone to the said village for purchasing paddy. He did not find any paddy 
C and walked around with the appellant in that village. While returning home 
along the westren side of the village when he reached near the house of one 
Surath Dewan (FW-4), Surath Dewan began talking with him. One Samir Seikh 
(PW-2) w.as also with the appellant at that time. When PW-2 Samir Seikh had 
walked about 60 cubits away from the deceased, he met Giyasuddin who was 
coming from the opposite direction. PW~2 stated that when he looked behind, 
D found that although the appellant and the deceased were walking together, 
the appellant suddenly became agitated and stabbed the deceased on his 
chest with a knife. 
On being informed of the said incident, the first inforrnat Badiujjaman 
(PW-I) went to the said village. Indisputably the first information report was 
E lodged at 0615 hours on 30th September, 1990. 
F 
The prosecution in support of its case, besides examining the first 
informat Badiujjaman (PW-1), also examined Samir Seikh (PW-2) and Gias 
Seikh (PW-3) who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 
As noticed hereinbefore, the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court 
relied on the testimonies of the said eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 and 
convicted the appellant for commission of an offence under Section 302 of 
the IPC. 
G 
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this 
appeal, would inter alia, submit that the learned Trial Judge and consequently 
the High Court committed an error in passing the judgment of conviction and 
sentence as; (i) the First Information Report was lodged after considerable 
delay; (ii) the Investigating Officer could not collect any bloodstains from the 
place of occurrence as on his own saying by the first informant (PW-I) that 
H there was heavy torrential rains; (iii) the weapon of attack, namely, knife was 
)-
TAMA@TAMAL MAL v. STATE 
919 
not recovered. 
We have been taken through the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 
as also the evidence of Dr. S.K. Chakrabarty (PW-9). The fact that the deceased 
met a homicidal death is not in dispute. From the evidence of the Doctor (PW-
9), who conducted the post-mortem examination, it appears that following 
A 
injuries were found on the person of the deceased: 
B 
(I) One punctured injury-( s

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