Allowed

Panchu Gopal Ghosh & Ors. v. State of W.B.

Calcutta HC20 Sept 2022CRA/586/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appellant challenged conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The High Court held prosecution failed to prove motive, exact place of occurrence, or recover weapons. Inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony further weakened the case. Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.

What did the court decide?

Conviction set aside; period of detention to be set off against sentence as per Section 428 CrPC.

Panchu Gopal Ghosh & Ors. Vs State of W.B. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

cm Item No.20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Present:

¶5

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

¶6

C.R.A. 586 of 2005

¶7

Panchu Gopal Ghosh & Ors. With State of West Bengal

¶8

For the Amicus Curie : Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty For the State : Mr. Binay Panda Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwalla Mr. Pratick Bose. Heard on : 9^th September, 2022 Judgment on : 20^th September, 2022

¶9

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. :-

¶10

The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 30.07.2005 and 03.08.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1^st Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24- Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 3(7)03 arising out of Sessions Case No. 46(4)03 convicting the appellants under Section 304(Part – I)/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing

¶11

¶12

the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- only each, in default, to suffer additional simple imprisonment for two months each for the aforesaid offences.

¶13

The prosecution case emanated out of the complaint dated 16.02.2003 which stated that the complainant Tahuran Bibi, aged 60 years being the mother of the victim narrated that on 16.02.2003 around 1.30 hours while her son was going to Barizpur Ghoshpara, the appellants, namely, Panchu Ghosh and his two sons i.e. Arun and Kartick beat him up out of grudge resulting in bleeding injury suffered by the victim who was thereafter admitted in Diamond Harbour hospital and his condition was not well. She requested for legal steps to be taken for such action. Complaint was scribed by one Noor Nabi Gazi cited as the prosecution witness No.1.

¶14

Based on the complaint Usthi P.S. Case No. 15 dated 16.02.2003 was initiated under Section 326/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after the demise of the victim on 17.02.2003 Section 304 IPC was added along with the earlier charges. Ultimately, charge-sheet was filed on 26.03.2003 under Section 326/308/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the

¶15

¶16

appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶17

The learned Amicus Curie submitted that P.W.1 Noor Nabi Gazi claimed himself to be a neighbor of the victim who had been the scribe as well as the eye witness in the instant case. It was further argued that wife of the appellant Panchu was seen to assault the victim at the courtyard by the PW.1. However, her name did not transpire in the written complaint nor she was cited as an accused by the investigating officer, on the contrary, she had been one of the prosecution witnesses. He further contended that in spite of being an eye witness himself the scribe did not describe the manner in which the appellants inflicted injury on the victim resulting in his death. The nature of the offending weapons was also not mentioned by the eye witness in the written complaint. He was not examined by the investigating officer. He deposed about the incident for the first time in the Court and he did not mention any of the occurrences in the written complaint. He further contended that the evidence of PW.2 was unreliable and therefore to be disbelieved since she was not present at the place of occurrence. She claimed to have seen the injured being carried away to the bank of the tank surprisingly did not reveal the same to any other person not even

¶18

¶19

to the investigating officer as she was not examined by the Investigating Officer. There were inconsistencies in her evidence as she stated to accompany the injured to the Diamond Harbour Sadar hospital, Kolkata. However, during her cross-examination she stated she did not admit the victim at Diamond Harbour Sadar hospital. It was further contended that the prosecution had declared PW.3 and PW.4 both to be hostile witnesses. He strenuously argued that the dying declaration of the victim was not recorded. The statements of persons recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were not cited as prosecution witnesses. The wife of one of the appellants Panchu Ghosh who was alleged to have been an abettor was not cited as an accused but as a witness. Though it was contended that the village was inhabited by 3000 to 4000 people but none of them deposed in the instant case. One Banbehari Pahari who admitted the victim at Diamond Sadar Hospital was not examined. He further stated that the evidence of PW.3 i.e. wife of the appellant Panchu Ghosh was inadmissible in view of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. There had been inconsistencies and infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appeal should be allowed.

¶20

¶21

Learned advocate for the State submits that the complaint had been lodged by the mother of the victim who instructed the PW.1 scribe to state the incident of assault experienced by the victim who had been her son. PW.1, PW.2, PW4, PW.5, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW.9 had corroborated the date and time of the assault. Place of occurrence was amply justified as depicted in the rough sketch map Marked as Ext. 7. wherein it had been stated that the victim had been assaulted by the appellants at the courtyard Marked as Ext. A. Thereafter taken to the tank of the pond Marked as Ext.7D in the said rough sketch map. The nature of injuries which were incised and the rigor mortis corroborate the Post Mortem report. The version of PW.2 corroborated that of PW.6 concerning the fact that the victim was admitted at the National Medical College by PW.2. PW.5 in his cross examination stated that the nature of injuries did not suggest to have been caused by combined 10 to 15 people which negate the defence story of “Ganapituni”. Moreover due to serious injuries over the face and head of the victim and with bandage, he was unable to talk and, therefore, the dying declaration could not be recorded. In spite of negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer, with regard to non-recovery of offending weapons, seizure of wearing apparels, bloodstained earth etc based on the corroborating statements of PW.1, PW.2,

¶22

¶23

PW.4, PW5 and PW7. prosecution was successful in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

PW.1 Noor Nabi Gazi during his deposition stated that the victim Panchu Ghosh was known to him who was eventually murdered one year back at 1 P.M. at the house of appellant Panchu Ghosh of Ghoshpara, village Buruzpur. He stated to have seen the appellants and the wife of the appellant Panchu Ghosh assault the victim inside the courtyard. He stated to have left the place of occurrence and thereafter the body of the victim was kept on the bank of the tank on the plank of the road by the side of the cemented bathing ghat. He accompanied the mother of the victim to the police station and had written complaint as dictated by PW.9 which was read over and explained to her and the same was marked as Ext.1. He further stated that the victim was assaulted with Bamboo sticks, bricks and Katari and he learnt that the victim died at the hospital. He further stated the house of the appellants was situated at a distance of less than 1 K.M. on foot within 5 to 6 minutes. In the FIR he did not mention the victim was assaulted by bamboo sticks, katari and bricks and confirmed the fact to be true that the FIR did not state the place of occurrence of the incident to be inside the courtyard of the

¶25

¶26

house of the appellants. He was not examined by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, in the written complaint he did not disclose the presence of any other person during the occurrence of the incident or that the body of the victim was shifted to another place from the actual place of occurrence.

¶27

PW.2 Rausanara Bibi was the full sister of the victim at the place of occurrence. She learnt from the villagers that her brother was assaulted by the appellants and she rushed to the spot and found the appellants to keep her injured brother near the ghat of a tank on the side of the village pathway. Eventually, she became senseless and regaining her senses she took the victim to Diamond Harbour Sadar hospital from where he was shifted to Chittaranjan Hospital at Kolkata (National Medical College) and died on the next morning. She had revealed the names of the assailants to the doctor. She further stated she was not examined by the investigating officer and was not able to state the names of the persons who informed about her brother’s assault. She further stated that she did not express to anyone that she had seen her brother being shifted way to the tank of the bank. During her cross-examination she stated that she did not admit her brother at the Diamond Harbour Sadar hospital. She stated she was present when the police had admitted the victim.

¶28

¶29

The prosecution witness being No.3 and 4 were declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶30

PW.5 Dr. Molly Banerjee during her examination stated she was posted at NRS Medical College and hospital in the department of forensic and State Medicine as a Demonstrator on 01.09.2003. She had conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased Raich Ali Purkait at 3.10 P.M. and found the following injuries:

¶31

“1. One abrasion 1” x ¼ ” over the anterior triangle on left side of neck.

¶32

One abrasion 1/2” x 1/2” over the middle of chin.

¶33

One stitched up wound obliquely placed over the right side of face 2” long with four stitches, half inch lateral to the outer canthus of right eye 1” above right mala prominence. On removal of the stitches, it is seen to be an incised chop wound of muscle depth.

¶34

One stitched up wound 2” long with four stitches more or less, transversely placed on left side of forehead starting at the mid-line and at the level of left eye-brow. On removal of

¶35

¶36

the stitches, it was seen to be an incised chop wound of bone depth.

¶37

One stitched up wound 1½” long with two stitches placed obliquely on the left side of the forehead starting at midline and ¼ above the fronto-nasal junction. On removal of the stitches, it is seen to be an incised chop wound of bone depth.

¶38

One stitched up wound 1” long with two stitches, more or less transversely placed ¼” lateral to mid-line and 1” above the left eye brow. On removal of the stitches, it is seen to be an incised chop wound of bone depth.

¶39

One stitched up wound, 2” long with four stitches, placed obliquely over the left frontal eminence of left forehead half inch left to the midline and 1½” above the left eye-brow. On removal of the stitches, it is found to be on incised chop wound of bone depth width scalp haemotoma 3” x 2” surrounding it.

¶40

One stitched up curved wound, 4” long with six stitches on the left side of the head over the fronto-pariental region 4” above the fronto nasal junction ¾ lateral to the mid-line. On removal of the

¶41

¶42

stitches, it is found to be an incised chop wound of bone depth with evidence of livelling (sic) direction of wound is transverse and medial in warts with evidence of scalp heamotoma 4” 2 ½” surrounding it.

¶43

One stitched up wound, 2” long with 4 stitches placed transversely and medial warts on the left side of the head over the left temporal region at a level 2” above the tip of left mastoid process and 2” below the left pariental eminence. On removal of the stitches, it is seen to be an incised chopped wound of cranial cavity depth, cut the hair bul (sic), scalp, made a cut fracture on squamous parts of left temporal bone 1¾” long, on removal of the stitches, it is seen to be an incised chop wound of cranial cavity with involvement of scalp, cut-fractured temporal bone 1 ¾ long a made a cut over the meanings and finally terminated on left temporal lobe of brain underneath with the sub-dural Haemotoma surrounding it of 2” x ½” area.

¶44

On dissection, I found

¶45

(1) A scalp Haematoma, 3” x 2” over right fronto temporal region of scallop

¶46

¶47

(2) Sub-Dural Haemotoma all over cerebral hemispheres including the under surface.”

¶48

She conclusively opined that the death was due to the effects of injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. The post mortem report was Marked as Ext. 3 which had the concurrence of Dr. Dipankar Guha Rai, the head of the Department FSL, Kolkata. All the injuries had been on the head and face of the deceased. During her cross-examination she stated that “ it is false to allege that 10 to 15 people assaulted the deceased”.

¶49

PW.6 Dr. Subir Muhuri in his deposition stated to have been posted at Calcutta Medical College and Hospital as a medical officer. On 16.02.2003 he was in similar position and had examined the victim Raich Ali Purkait who was admitted by Rausanara Bibi in PW.2 and noted the place of assault in the hospital records to be Barizpur P.S. Usthi. PW.2 at the time of admission stated that the victim Raich Ali Purkait was assaulted with “Chopper” by the appellants. The patient was drowsy and had been referred from Diamond Harbour Sadar hospital to be admitted. He had pulse rate of 68 per minute. There were dressings all over the scalp and face of the victim as a consequence of which he was unable to talk. PW.6 stated that

¶50

¶51

since he did not examine the patient it was not possible for him to state the nature of weapon used in assaulting the victim. The carbon copy of the report maintained in the hospital with regard to the admission of the victim marked as Ext. 5. He did not examine the victim.

¶52

PW.7 Dr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya was Associate professor in the Department of Surgery in National Medical College and hospital under whom the victim had been admitted.

¶53

PW.8 Ajit Kumar Sikdar during his evidence stated to have retired from the service. On the relevant date of the incident i.e. 16.02.2003 he was posted at Usthi P.S. as S.I. of police. Usthi P.S. Case No. 15 dated 16.02.2003 was endorsed to him for investigation by the then OC, Biswajit Banerjee. The formal FIR was drawn by ASI, Sisir Kumar Majumder whose hand writing and signature was known to PW.8 and the said formal FIR was Marked as Ext.6 which endorsed him to conduct the investigation and such endorsement was marked as Ext. 6/1 and case was initiated under Section 326/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the death of the injured on 17.02.2003 charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The victim was initially admitted at Diamond Harbour Sadar hospital wherefrom he was shifted on reference to Chittaranjan Medical College and

¶54

¶55

Hospital at Calcutta. He initiated his investigation by visiting the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch map and the same was signed by him Marked as Ext.7. He examined several other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely Sandhya Ghosh wife of the appellant Panchu Ghosh, Smt. Panchami Ghosh, wife of Bholanath Ghosh, Smt. Mamata Ghosh, wife of late Judistir Ghosh, Ram Dular Ghosh, S/o late Bhupal Ghosh, Sukurmar Ghosh, S/o Late Pramotho Chandra Ghosh all of Barizpur village. He had also recorded the statement of the complainant Tahuran Bibi and Noor Nabi Gazi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He had arrested the appellants on 16.02.2003 from Barizpur village. After the demise of the victim on 17.02.2003 he collected the post mortem report of the deceased and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet.

¶56

During his cross-examination he stated that the house of Noor Nabi Gazi and Tahurun Bibi was situated in the village of Uttar Kusum which was at a distance of more than one K.M. away from the village where the appellants had been the residents. The village did not have pucca road. He further stated that Barizpur is a big village inhabited by 3000 to 4000 people. In the rough sketch marked as Ext.7, he did not mention the distance between Barizpur ghat entrance road and the place of

¶57

¶58

occurrence. He also did not mention the distance of the tank from the place of occurrence. He did not mention the distance between one spot and another in the sketch map. He further stated that the deceased victim was a FIR named accused in another case under Usthi P.S. case No. 65/2002 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed the fact that the deceased was a notorious criminal in the locality. He further stated that he was aware of the enmity between different criminal gangs. He further stated that he did not record the statement of Banbehari Pahari under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further did not seize any weapon of the offence. He stated that the deceased was alone when he was murdered as per complaint. On suggestion he denied that he did not explore the real motive behind the murder of the victim.

¶59

PW. 9 Tauran Bibi the mother of the victim’s evidence was recorded on commission. She stated that her son was murdered in the month of Falgoon two years ago at about 12.01 P.M. at the house of the appellants in the village of Barizpur. The appellants murdered his son Raich Ali Purkait. Being informed of the incident she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the appellants assaulting her son with “Chalakat” and “katari”. The public rushed to the place of occurrence. Her son was shifted to

¶60

¶61

the hospital at Diamond Harbour wherefrom he was referred to the hospital in Calcutta where he died. She stated to have lodged complaint at the police station.

¶62

During her cross-examination she stated she had been bed ridden for one and half years. Prior to her son’s death she was physically well. She stated that on ‘Haka Haki’ by the public that the victim was being assaulted, she rushed to the place of occurrence. She further stated that 15 to 20 people including female, children were present at the place of occurrence. However, she was not able to state their names as she was puzzled. She further stated that her son, daughter and another person had taken the victim to the hospital. She further stated that she did not state the names of the person who had taken her son to the police and she did not mention in the written complaint that her son was assaulted by katari nor did she state the body parts that sustained injuries. She stated her family members were present during the occurrence. She stated the complaint was written at the police station. On suggestion she denied that her son was dacoit but was in fruit business. She stated that she had met PW.1 i.e. Noor Nabi Gazi at the police station.

¶63

¶64

Based on the rival submissions it is imperative to assess the evidence on record.

¶65

PW.1 in his evidence stated that he had seen the appellants and his two sons and the wife of the appellant Panchu Ghosh assaulting the victim. It was surprising that he left the place having witnessed the incident of assault without raising alarm or instantly reporting the incident to the police or seeking any kind of assistance from other persons in order to save and protect the victim from being assaulted. If he had been the eye witness to have seen the entire episode of assault of the victim by the appellants, he inevitably was the best person to narrate the entire incident to describe the manner and intent in which the assault took place. In the complaint, he did not mention that the wife of the appellants Panchu Ghosh was also one of the miscreants. He did not describe the nature of the offending weapons used by the victim to cause such assault according to his knowledge namely bamboo sticks, bricks and kathari. PW.8 investigating officer in his cross examination stated that he had recorded the statement of PW.1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though the same was refuted by PW.1 in his cross examination stating that he was never examined by the investigating officer. PW.9 mother of the victim stated there were 15 to 20 people

¶66

¶67

assembled at the place of occurrence who created a commotion and clamour which compelled her to reach the place of occurrence. This fact was not mentioned in the written complaint. PW.1 in his evidence stated that he had accompanied the mother of the victim to the police station, however, PW.9 the mother of the victim stated that he had met PW.1 at the police Station. In his cross-examination PW.1 stated that he had seen the victim to be taken near the ghat of a tank but the same was not mentioned in the complaint. PW.2 the sister of the victim was post occurrence witness who was not examined by the investigating officer. She could not state the names of the persons who informed her about her brother being assaulted. She stated that she had taken her brother to Diamond Harbour Sadar hospital in-chief, however, denied the same during her cross-examination. Her evidence is the based on hearsay.

¶68

From the evidence on record, it transpired that she was absent at the time the victim was admitted in Diamond Harbour Sadar hospital. She was present at the time of the admission of the victim at Chittaranjan Medical College. The medical certificate marked as Ext. 2 revealed that a person Banbehari Pahari of Usthi Palpara, PS. Usthi from Barizpur had brought the victim to the hospital. The victim was mentioned as unknown who was

¶69

¶70

bleeding profusely with blood from his mouth over the face and was admitted under one Dr. Jafar Ali. There was no reason for the prosecution to declare the independent witness to be hostile who had no connection with the instant case or any relation either with the appellants or the victim. PW.4 had no reason to depose falsely in the court since he had been the independent witness and only attended to the victim as placed before him without any kind of previous relationship of the parties. It is one of the peculiar instances where the prosecution chose to disbelieve the deposition of a doctor for the reasons best known to the prosecution case.

¶71

Moreover, PW.8 i.e. the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of PW.4 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to confront him during examination before the court. There was no plausible reason for PW.4 to manufacture the medical certificate marked as Ext. 2. PW.1 stated that the victim was assaulted with Bamboo sticks, bricks and katari and the same were not mentioned in the written complaint. PW.9 during her examination on commission stated that the victim was assaulted with Chalakat and katari. The prosecution failed to recover the offending weapons. PW.1 stated that the victim was assaulted in the house of appellant No.1 Panchu Ghosh. PW.2 also stated that the same venue of the

¶72

¶73

assault to be the house of appellant No.1 along with PW.9. Both the PW.2 and PW.9 were not present at the time of occurrence of the incident. PW.9 during her examination stated that hearing the news she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that the appellants were assaulting her son the victim with “chalakat and katari”. During her examination in chief as well as crossexamination she stated that she went to the place of occurrence on being informed by the public. According to her 15 to 20 people including female, children were present at the place of occurrence. She further stated during her cross-examination that her family members were present during the occurrence. She also stated that half an hour is required to reach to her house from the place of occurrence. There are inconsistencies and infirmities in her evidence and is not trustworthy. She did not mention the name of any family member who had informed her of the incident. Nowhere in the evidence it has transpired that the entire incident took place for more than 30 minutes for her to be at the spot where the victim was being assaulted. PW.1 stated that the body of the victim was kept on the tank of the bank but did not name the persons who changed the place of occurrence taking him from the courtyard to the bank on the tank of the plank. During his cross-examination he stated that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer who however, in his cross-

¶74

¶75

examination stated that he was examined by PW.1 claiming to have witnessed the incident of assault and one to have narrated the entire incident to the complainant i.e. PW.9 who dictated him to write the complaint and did not mention the mode and manner in which the assault took place. Not a single person was mentioned in the written complaint or cited as witness by the prosecution to have seen the entire incident to occur as claimed by PW.9. PW.2 did not accompany the victim to the Diamond SD Sadar hospital as she herself stated the same during her crossexamination, however, she was present at the time when the victim was taken to Calcutta Medical College. Therefore, it is evident that third party must have taken the victim to be admitted at Diamond Harbour Sadar Hospital namely Banbehari Pahari whose name transpired from the document marked as Ext.2. However, the prosecution did not examine the said person. The motive to commit the crime in the instant case has not been established by the prosecution. It has been stated that the victim was assaulted by the appellants due to grudge, however, the element of grudge to have been exercised by the appellants on the victim was not established. PW.8 during his evidence stated that the victim was an accused in connection with Usthi PS. Case No. 65 of 2003 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he had been a notorious criminal. However, no such criminal

¶76

¶77

antecedents concerning the appellants came on record. PW.8 has failed to identify the exact place of occurrence of the incident and the same was not mentioned in the rough sketch map.

¶78

Learned advocate for the State submitted that investigating officer had recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to have been family members of the appellants, and, therefore, not cited as a witness. In the presence of 15 to 20 people if the incident had been committed in the village or the person who had informed PW.2 and PW.9 of the incident could have been cited as a witness to create a chain of link to establish the prosecution case. Wearing apparels of the victim were not seized, the bloodstained earth found the place of occurrence was also not seized for FSL examination. It is the fact that PW.2 was present at the time when the victim was admitted at Calcutta Medical College on the reference from the S.D. hospital Diamond Harbour. But the victim was not accompanied by either PW.1, PW.2 or PW.9 to the S.D. hospital contrary to the claim of PW.9 to have been present at the place of occurrence. There are infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.9 with regard to the place of occurrence of the incident. PW.9 did not state in her deposition regarding the cause of grudge

¶79

¶80

which the appellants might have had against the victim to express the same into commission of crime against him.

¶81

In the case of Nandu Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh,

¶82

the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that,

¶83

“10. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.

¶84

11. In Anwar Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 this court made the legal position clear in following words:

¶85

24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri V.

¶86

State of Bihar, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 80 that if motive is proved

¶87

¶88

that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.

¶89

However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In paras 25 and 26, it is observed and held as under: ( Babu case, SCC pp.200-01)

¶90

Prosecution failed to establish the motive of the appellants to commit the offence. PW.9 i.e. the mother of the victim in her complaint as well as in her evidence stated that the appellants had grudge against the victim and to sub-serve the same murdered him. However, the element of grudge was not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove the exact place of occurrence of the crime. The offending weapons were not recovered. Bloodstained earth etc. were not seized and not sent for FSL Examination. Irregularities and illegalities arising out of defective investigation cannot disprove the prosecution case when creditworthy evidence is present to incriminate the assailants. In the instant case inconsistencies and infirmities in the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.9 weakened the prosecution case. The prosecution, however, failed to establish the motive and in view of

¶91

¶92

the aforesaid observation, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and appeal is accordingly, allowed and the conviction is set aside.

¶93

Period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶94

Lower court records along with copies of this judgment be sent down at once to the learned trial court.

¶95

I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty, learned Advocate as amicus curiae in disposing of the appeal.

¶96

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.

¶97

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)

¶98

Panchu Gopal Ghosh & Ors. v. State of W.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchu Gopal Ghosh & Ors. v. State of W.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kitply Industries Limited & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Atish Sarkar Vs Madhumita Mallick & Anr.

Sankar Sarkar & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Jay Sankar Bagchi & Anr. Vs Balai Das & Anr.

Raj Kr Churiwala Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Amal Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal