Ashok Kumar Mondal Vs.
Samir Kumar Mondal & ANR [2008] INSC 1787 (21 October 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 17 OF 2002 ASHOK
KUMAR MONDAL ... Appellant(s) Versus SAMIR KUMAR MONDAL & ANR. ...
Respondent(s) WITH Crl. A. No. 361/2002
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
Heard.
In both these appeals
challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
directing acquittal of the respondent Samir Kumar Mondal who was convicted by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum, Rampurhat for offence punishable
under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC). He
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years.
The prosecution
version as unfolded during trial is that on 24.01.1988 in the early morning
when Gouri Balal Mondal wife of the deceased was engaged in washing utensils,
her husband's elder brother accused Benoy Kumar Mondal (who was acquitted) was
cleaning the road with broom stick. At that time, some dust particles fell on
the person of Gouri -2- Bala, as a reason whereof, there was exchange of hot
words amongst her husband, two sons with the accused and his father. At that
time, the accused Samir Kumar Mondal stated to have brought a crowbar and stuck
on the head on Ajit Kumar Mondal, husband of PW2; as a consequence whereof,
father of PW1 became unconscious and sustained bleeding injuries. He was taken
to the Primary Health Centre but later shifted to Suri Sadar Hospital. He
succumbed to the injuries. On the next date i.e on 25.01.2008 first information
report was lodged at the police station. The prosecution relied on the evidence
of four persons who are stated to be eye-witnesses. The trial court on the
basis of evidence brought on record found the respondent Samir Kumar Mondal to
be guilty as noted above and convicted him. In appeal, the High Court found
that the evidence of the witness do not inspire confidence and not reliable,
genesis of the prosecution story was suppressed and therefore it was unsafe to
rely on the witnesses.
Learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for the State of West Bengal submitted that
the reasoning’s of the High Court are contrary to the evidence and material on
record. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the High
Court.
We find that the High
Court has analysed the evidence and has come to a categorical conclusion that
there -3- was discrepancy between the injuries and also of size of the injuries
as stated by the Doctor. The eye-witnesses were not reliable. The genesis of
the prosecution version is doubtful. The view taken by the High Court is a
possible view and we do not consider these appeals to be fit cases where any
interference is called for.
The appeals are
dismissed accordingly.
...................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
....................J.
(C.K.THAKKER)
....................J.(LOKESHWAR
SINGH PANTA)
New
Delhi,
October
21, 2008.
Back
