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