Jeher Ali Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 June, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
C.R.A No. 480 of 2016

Jeher Ali Mondal
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal Ors.

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rupna Bhattacharya Roy.

For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, ld. P.P.,
Mr. Imran Ali.

Heard On : 16.03.2017, 05.06.2017, 12.06.2017.

C.A.V. On : 12.06.2017.
Judgment Delivered On : 28.06.2017.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.:

Calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment and order

of conviction dated 20.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court Barasat in connection with S.T. No.

2(4) of 2011, the appellant has preferred this appeal. By the impugned

judgment, the learned trial court has convicted the present accused

appellant under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 306 of the IPC.

2. In course of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant has submitted that there is no cogent evidence for which the

present accused appellant could be convicted. She has also referred to some

of the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According

to the appellant, if those were taken into consideration in its proper

perspectives the conviction would not lie.
3. Mr. Imran Ali appeared on behalf of the state practically could not

assist the court by making any submission rather he did not mention the

salient parts of the judgment.

4. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial

court it appears that the learned trial court did not rely on the alleged dying

READ  S. Abboy Naidu-vs-R. Sundararajan And Others on 13 November, 1992

declaration only on the ground that it was recorded by the police officer and

that there is no endorsement that the victim was conscious and there was

no such certificate from the concerned doctor that she was in a fit condition

to make declaration.

5. At the time of admission of appellant, this court vide order dated

04.10.2016

, issued rule calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why

the order of acquittal under Section 302 of the IPC be not set aside.

6. At the time of argument learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

state did not make any submission on this point.

7. However, there are significant changes of judicial verdicts in

connection with ‘dying declaration’. Initially the decision reported in

Paparambaka Rosamma -Vs.- State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1999

SCC (Cri.) 1361 and another decision of Koli Chunilal Savji -Vs.- State of

Gujarat reported in (2000) SCC (Cri.) 432, were frequently considered and

adopted by the criminal courts. Since there were some sorts of contradictory

finding, a five man bench was constituted by the Hon’ble Apex Court and

the said bench has decided the ratio in Laxman -Vs.- State of Maharashtra

reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710.

8. So, now the present position is law such that the certificate by the

doctor regarding the mental stress of the victim is not required, if it is
proved otherwise. Since it is recorded by the police officer that cannot be the

only reason for discarding the dying declaration. Accordingly, I am of the

READ  Rakhal Debnath vs State Of West Bengl on 4 September, 2012

view that the judgment passed by the learned trial court should be set aside.

The instant case be remanded with the direction to the learned trial court to

consider the applicability of Section 302 of the IPC also in this connection

and to consider the dying declaration afresh. The learned trial court shall

hear the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both sides, without being

influenced by the observation made above, positively within a month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.R.A. 480 of 2016 stands

disposed of in the manner as indicated above.

9. Let a copy of this order and LCR be sent to the learned Court

below at once for information and taking necessary action.

10. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)
A.F.R/N.A.F.R.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *