SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Som Shankar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal on 27 September, 2019

1

In The High Court At Calcutta
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

CRA 461 of 2009
CRAN 1157 of 2019
Som Shankar Roy
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal

Before : The Hon’ble The Chief Justice Thottathil B.
Radhakrishnan

The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee

For the appellant : Mr. Milan Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Rahul Ganguly, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. A. P.P.,
Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Heard On : 07.08.2019, 31.07.2019 17.07.2019

CAV on : 07.08.2019

Judgment On : 27.09.2019

Arijit Banerjee, J.:-

(1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28 April,

2009 and 29 April, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 1(11)08 arising

out of Sessions Case No. 3(11)08. The accused/appellant was charged

with commission of offence under Sections 376 and Section302 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (SectionIPC). The accused was convicted and was sentenced to
2

suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-,

in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for

commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. He was further

sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in

default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, for commission

of offence under Section 302 IPC.

(2) The prosecution case on the basis of the written complaint

lodged by the uncle of the victim girl on 22 June, 2008, essentially, is

that the victim namely, Jyotsna Mallick aged 17 years, resident of

village Janipur, District- North 24 Parganas went out of the house on 22

June 2008 at about 4 P.M. to collect flowers of ‘potol’ (pointed gourd)

from the potol field. When she did not return, PW1 (de facto

complainant) and two others namely, Basudeb Rakshit (PW7) and

Sarojit Mondal (PW21) went out in search of her and at around 7 P.M.,

they found her lying dead, strangulated with her ‘orna’, in the mestha

field of Murari Roy (PW4). Her churidar pant was lying by her side

while inner pant was lying on her belly. According to the prosecution,

the victim girl was raped and then strangulated to death by her

tormentor between 4 and 7 P.M. The prosecution case is that the

accused raped the victim girl and then killed her by strangulating her
3

with her ‘orna’. Thirteen days after the incident the accused was

arrested by the police from Rajarhat.

(3) The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses to substantiate their

charge of rape and the murder of the victim. The entire case of the

prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-

witness. The defence has not examined any witness. The accused was

examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At the commencement of the

trial the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried. Let us

now advert to the deposition of the key witnesses and relevant

documents which the learned Trial Judge has recorded.

(4) PW1 is the de facto complainant of the case. He is the uncle of

the victim. According to him, on the date of the incident when the

victim did not return home, the mother of the victim PW 17 (Namita

Mullick) asked him to look for her. He along with two others namely

Basudeb Rakshit (PW 7) and Sarojit Mondal (PW 21) went out in search

of her. On reaching the P.O (Place of Occurrence) they flashed the

torch light and found some plants in disturbed and shattered condition.

They found the victim lying on the ground with her ‘orna’ tied around

her neck. Her churidar was found beside her and her inner pant was

lying on her belly. In course of the trial he appeared before the Court
4

and has identified the clothes, chappal and three buttons that were

seized by the police. He also stated that it was on his instruction that

one Rashid Gazi prepared the FIR. In his cross-examination he has

withstood his case.

(5) PW2 Sujit Rakshit is a co-villager. In his deposition he has

identified his signature that appears on the inquest report. In his cross-

examination he has denied the presence of Ramesh (one of the uncles

of the victim) but has affirmed that Asim (PW1) was present. PW3 is

also a co-villager and he has also identified his signature on the inquest

report. Similar is the case with PW4 (Murari Roy). It was on his field

that the victim was found dead. He has also identified his signature on

the inquest report.

(6) PW 5 Ramesh Mallick is another uncle of the victim. He has

stated that on 22.06.2008 at 5-5:30 PM he went to his field which is

adjacent to the P.O and there he saw the accused Som Shankar. On

seeing him the accused tried to conceal himself by sitting down. He

was coming out of the field of Murari Roy. On being questioned by him

the accused did not reply. In his cross-examination he has withstood

his ground.
5

(7) PW 7 Basudeb Rakshit has stated that on that fateful day when

he came back to his house Asim (PW1) asked him to help him to search

for the victim. He went near the field of Murari Roy and saw some

plants trampled in the eastern corner. He saw the victim lying on the

ground with her ‘orna’ tied to her neck. Her churidar was found beside

her and her inner pant was lying on her belly. He then raised a hue and

cry.

(8) PW 8 Haran Sardar is a co-villager. He has merely testified about

the past character of the accused. According to him two years ago a

girl named Fatima Gazi was ‘returning home after tying her goats’,

when the accused tried to rape her. It was he who rescued her.

(9) PW 9 Bina Mondal is a co-villager. She has stated that on

22.06.2008 at about 4 PM she saw the accused Som near the P.O. He

was roaming /loitering about. Thereafter, one Sunita Mondal informed

her that she had heard groaning sound coming from the P.O. After half

an hour she saw the accused Som coming out of the P.O and then he

washed his hands in a tap which was in the backside of her house. The

accused was in a dishevelled condition. Then she found Asim (PW1) and

two others searching with torch light. In her cross-examination she has
6

reiterated her stand about seeing accused Som twice. It was also her

case that it was Som and no one else whom she had seen.

(10) PW 10 Sunita Mondal is a co-villager. It was her stand that she

had heard groaning sound coming from the P.O and she informed Bina

Mondal. But she did not go there to see what was happening.

(11) PW 12 Fatema Gazi is a co-villager. It was her case that she too

saw Som the accused loitering around the P.O. But it appears from her

deposition that she has not stated the time. She has also stated that

two years ago the accused Som tried to rape her and she was saved by

PW 7 Haran. She has stated substantially the same thing in her cross-

examination.

(12) PW 14 Rafique Gazi is a friend of the accused. He had turned

hostile during the trial. However he has stated that on that fateful

evening/night the accused had come to see him at his house. He did

not come inside. And when he informed the accused that the body of

Jyotsna (victim) was discovered he started perspiring and expressed his

uneasiness. Later when he came back he found that the accused had

left his house.
7

(13) PW 15 Rina Talukdar was the Judicial Magistrate posted at

Bongaon Court. Ramesh (PW 5) was produced before her on 01.07.2008

and Bina Mondal and Fatema Gazi were produced on 25.07.2008 for

recording their statements u/s 164 of SectionCr.P.C. She has identified her

signature and proved the statements she had recorded.

(14) PW 16 Latika Mallick is the aunt of the victim. She has deposed

that after she reached the P.O it was she who put on clothes on the

victim. The following morning her husband (Ramesh PW5) informed her

that he had seen accused Som near the P.O. But we can’t rely on this

part as the same is hearsay.

(15) PW 17 Namita Mondal is the mother of the victim. On 22.06.2008

when her daughter did not return home she asked her ‘dewar’

(brother-in-law) to go and look for her daughter. Soon Basudeb (PW7)

came back to her house and informed her that the dead body of the

victim was found at the field. She rushed to the spot and saw the

victim lying in the condition that we have already noted above. PW 5

Ramesh informed her that he had heard groaning sound coming from

the P.O when he had gone to his field to spray pesticide. Later he had

seen Som near the P.O and when Som saw him he tried to hide himself.
8

She identified the seized materials viz clothes and slippers of the

victim. She deposed the same thing in her cross examination.

(16) PW 18 Amir Ali Dafadar is a co-villager. He identified his

signature that appears on the seizure list. It was his stand that the

police seized clothes of Som in his presence. And in his cross-

examination he has stated that he went to the house of Som of his own

accord. It was here that police had prepared the seizure list. One Sunit

Mondal was also present and he too had signed on the seizure list.

(17) PW 17 is Dr. Dipak Maitra who had conducted the autopsy on the

body of the victim on 23.06.2008 at 1-10 PM. On examination of the

body he had found the following:

1.

1″ x ½ Blackish ecchymoses present over the right
side of neck at the same level of ligature mark of neck.

2. A scratch mark measuring¼ “x ¼ present over the
right elbow.

3. Vulva labia mejora was blood stained and hymen was
ruptured.

4. Semi-circular marks of ligature in front of neck
measuring 4″ x ½.

9

According to him death of the deceased was caused due to respiratory
failure which was due to asphyxia caused due to strangulation
following rape, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.

(18) PW 23 Asit Rakshat is another co-villager. He has stated that

police collected one yellow churidar pant, one ‘ghea’ colour orna, one

Ajanta Chappal, three bluish buttons from the spot of crime in his

presence. He had signed on the seizure list and had identified the

same in Court. On cross-examination he reaffirmed his stand.

(19) PW 24 Tapas Kumar Das is the Sub-Inspector of Police who was

the I.O. of the case. He has identified the signature of ASI Bishnupada

Sardar who had lodged the FIR. It was he who had conducted the

inquest and prepared the sketch map. He had also seized some

material evidence from the spot viz. churidar, orna, chappal, 3

buttons, and some broken mestha plants in presence of witnesses. He

had also seized hair, blood, nail, vaginal swab from a constable and

had sent it to Forensic Laboratory. He has identified his signature on

the seizure list. It was he who had also seized one bluish colour half

pant and one and half sleeve check shirt with bluish buttons with 2nd,

3rd and 4th button missing.

(20) Now, let us see how far the evidence adduced by the prosecution

establishes the prosecution case. Let us first take the charge of
10

murder. As noted above, the entire prosecution case is based on

circumstantial evidence. In cases where the evidence is circumstantial

in nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be

drawn should be fully established and all the facts so established

should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they

should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one proposed

to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so very complete as

not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the

innocence of the accused and it must be such that within all human

probability, the offending act must have been done by the accused

(See: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh,

AIR 1952 SC 343).

(21) The law with regard to the conviction on the basis of

circumstantial evidence has been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of SectionHarishchandra Ladaku Thange -vs- State

of Maharashtra, (2007) 11 SCC 436 : AIR 2007 SC 2957. At

paragraphs 8 to 12 of the judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid

down as follows:-

“8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a
case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of
guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of
11

the accused or the guilt of any other person. (SectionSee Hukam Singh v.
State of Rajasthan 1977 CriLJ 639, SectionEradu v. State of
Hyderabad 1956 CriLJ 559, SectionEarabhadrappa v. State of
Karnataka, SectionState of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. 1985 CriLJ 1479,
Balwinder Singh alias SectionDalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987
CriLJ 330 and SectionAshok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. 1989
CriLJ 2124. The circumstances from which an inference as to the
guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the
principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. SectionIn
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down
that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be
such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home
the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in SectionC.
Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. 1996 CriLJ 3461,
wherein it has been observed thus:

21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is
that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn
should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive
in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete
and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further,
the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent
with his innocence.

10. SectionIn Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC79 it was
laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,
such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to
be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
all human probability the crime was committed by the accused
and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to
sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such
evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

11. SectionIn State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava [1992] 1 SCR 37
it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating
circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably
capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must
12

be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied
upon must be found to have been fully established and the
cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book `Wills’ Circumstantial
Evidence’ (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to
be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be
clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the
factum probandum;

(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the
existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability;
(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the
best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case
admits (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the
inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable
hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5) if there be any
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of
right to be acquitted.

13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on
circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone
of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court
as far back as in 1952.”

(22) It is, therefore, a settled principle of law that an accused can be

punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence

provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, a

complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points

towards the involvement and guilt of the accused. The accused will not

be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye-witness.[See:

SectionSanatan Naskar-vs.- State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249].

(23) In the present case the conviction of the accused hinges on three

important piece of evidence. The first being the last seen theory.
13

(24) The legal proposition on this was summarized by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Satpal v. State of Haryana,Criminal Appeal

No.1892 of 2017. The Court held that:

“Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial
precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the
basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a
facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may
be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction
upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with
other circumstances such as the time when the deceased
was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the
corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused
owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act
with regard to the circumstances under which death may
have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or
furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is
established, and there is corroborative evidence available
inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a
chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for
guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible
hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the
same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of
circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the
accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on
its own facts for invocation of the doctrine.”

(25) In the instant case when the accused was examined under Sectionsection

313 of Code of Criminal Procedure he was confronted with the

following question no.34 that “She i.e. (PW 12) further stated in her

evidence that at that time you were loitering near the mestha field.

What have you to say? Answer: False.” In fact the entire case of the

accused/defence was based on bare denial. From the evidence of PW5,
14

9 and 12 it is clear that they had seen the accused near the P.O. and

that too just before the crime. In fact when PW5 (Uncle of victim) saw

him and the accused saw that he was being seen, the accused tried to

hide himself by sitting. And when he was asked as to what was he

doing the accused did not reply. The facts of the case and the

evidence on record do not disclose nor is it the defence case that there

was any animosity between the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and

the accused that would prompt the witnesses to depose falsely only to

implicate the accused. The learned Judge had no reason to disbelieve

the said witnesses. The learned Judge had the advantage of watching

the demeanour of the witnesses which an Appellate Court does not

have. An Appellate Court should not interfere with appreciation of

evidence by the learned Trial Judge, unless there is glaring error in

such appraisal of evidence. The presence of the accused at the place

which was in close geographical proximity to the place of occurrence

around the time of Commission of the crime is fairly established by the

evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. However, this fact per se would

not have convinced us in the absence of other incriminating evidence.

(26) The I.O. in presence of witnesses had seized some clothes,

slipper and three bluish shirt buttons. And later he had also seized the

clothes of the accused from his home. The same was sent to the FSL.
15

The examining Dr. S. Mukeherjee, the Assistant Director Physic Division

Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata has stated in his report no. 167

dated 19.01.2009 the following:

“Two buttons (one is collar button and another is spare
button) were taken out from the shirt marked B as control
for comparison with those contained in envelope marked
‘D.’ The stiching threads at the positions of the missing
buttons (i.e) 1st, 2nd and 3rd of the button pleat of the shirt
marked ‘B’ bore signs of cut.

However, the buttons contained in envelope marked ‘D’
were found to be similar to the above control buttons in
respect of measurements of various dimensions, designs
and the characters of word ‘Cotton’ etc.”

(27) From the above it is clear that three buttons that the police

recovered from the P.O matches with that of the shirt that was seized

by the police from the house of the accused. This in our opinion is a

damning recovery and it further adds to the chain of reasoning that the

prosecution has sought to build. The case of the defence on this score

is also based on mere denial.

(28) The learned Trial Judge has further sought to implicate the

accused on the basis of the fact that soon after the incidence the

accused fled away from his village. He has placed reliance on SectionDhanjay

Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal 1994 Cr.LJ (SC) 35. Mere

absconsion by itself should not be taken as a proof of guilt. Fear of
16

police often impels the poor to run away from investigation agencies.

But in this case the factum of absconsion adds weight to the case of

the prosecution. It is an additional link in the chain that points towards

the guilt of the accused.

(29) Recovery of the three buttons from the place of occurrence

where the victim’s dead body was found and the forensic report

certifying that those buttons belonged to the shirt which was seized

from the house of the accused by the police conclusively establishes

the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence. Going by

Section 106 of the Evidence Act or even by general principles of law, it

was upto the accused to provide an explanation in this regard. The

accused chose not to say anything excepting, denying that he was at

the place of occurrence on the date and the time of Commission of the

crime. That the victim was murdered is indisputable in view of inter

alia, the Post Mortem Report. The autopsy doctor (PW17) has clearly

deposed that the death of the victim was caused due to respiratory

failure which was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation

following rape (we will come to issue of rape immediately), ante

mortem and homicidal in nature. The facts and circumstances

discussed above, in our opinion, are such that provide a complete

chain and which unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and
17

excludes any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. We are in

agreement with the conclusion of the learned Trial Judge regarding the

commission of offence under Section 302 IPC by the accused. Although,

there is no eye-witness in this case, the circumstances of the case

speak eloquently and indubitably point towards the guilt of the

accused in so far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned.

(30) Looking at the matter from another angle, let us take the

following sequence of facts or events. The dead body of the victim is

discovered at the place of occurrence. Around that time, the accused

was seen roaming/loitering around the place of occurrence by Bina

Mondal (PW9). When he saw that he was being noticed by Ramesh

Mallick (PW5), he tried to hide himself by sitting down. When he was

asked by PW5 as to what he was doing there, he did not reply. The

very next day he absconded and was on the run till he was arrested 13

days later from Rajarhat. The police seized, inter alia, three shirt

buttons from the place of occurrence. The police also seized a shirt

from the residence of the accused which had three buttons missing.

Forensic report confirmed that the three buttons recovered from the

place of occurrence belonged to the shirt of the accused seized by the

police. The presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is

established beyond reasonable doubt. The accused did not offer any
18

explanation as to what he was doing at the place of occurrence. Do

these facts complete a chain of circumstances that leads inevitably to

the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the murder?

We think it does. The chain of events is complete. There is no missing

link. We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the

accused/appellant is guilty of murdering the victim. Hence, the order

convicting the appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section

302 is eligible to be sustained. We confirm it.

(31) The Court of Session has sentenced the appellant to suffer life

imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for one month for Commission of offence under

Section 302 IPC. In view of the gravity of the offence and the nature in

which it was committed and on an overall assessment of the facts and

circumstances of the case in its totality, we see no reason to differ

with the learned Trial Judge on that count. We are of the considered

view that the punishment imposed by the learned Trial Judge is

commensurate with the crime committed by the accused and is wholly

justified.

(32) Coming to the charge under Section 376 IPC (rape), the medical

evidence adduced by the autopsy doctor (PW17) which has been

adverted to above, shows that vulva labia mejora of the victim was
19

blood stained and hymen was ruptured. Further, the dead body of the

victim was discovered in disrobed condition. A scratch mark present

over the right elbow of the victim is indicative of a struggle on her part

obviously in self-defence. The question is whether it was the accused

who committed rape on the victim or somebody else? Although, it is

quite likely that the accused raped the victim and then to shut her

mouth for ever strangulated her to death, we cannot base a conviction

on conjectures or surmises. Suspicion, however strong, cannot be the

basis for conviction.

(33) It would appear from the report of the Director-cum-Senior

Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory Dr. (Mrs) Sipra Roy dated

19/12/2008 Memo no.3317/1 that the expert has noted the following:

“The paper packet M contained one service cover sealed
with the seal of Dr. J.R.Dhar, S.D. Hospital, Bongaon, 24
Parganas. It contained two cotton plugged test tubes which
were marked by me as M1 and M2 respectively. The test
tubes M1 was found to be apparently empty. The plugged
cotton wool and the inner wall of the test tube bore very
few greyish stains. It was said to contain semen of Som
Shankar Roy. The plugged cotton wool and the inner wall
of the test tube were examined. The test tube M2
contained three strands of hair bearing apparently no
stains, said to be public hair of Som Shankar Roy. No semen
(no spermatozoon) could be detected in the contents of the
items marked A (Salwar/pant), E (Kamiz), F (Jangia), G
(Tape frock), H (Half pant), I1 (public hair), I3 (nail), I4
(hair), I5 (vaginal swab), M1 (plugged cotton wool and
inner wall of the test tube) and M2 (public hair).”

20

(34) Two things emerge from the above. Firstly, no trace of sperm

could be detected on the clothe of the victim; secondly, the test tube

said to contain the sperm of the accused was found to be empty by the

FSL. Such being the case, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to

the accused in so far as the charge of rape against him is concerned. In

a case of this kind where forensic evidence does not support or

corroborate circumstantial evidence, the accused deserves to be given

the benefit of doubt. Although, the circumstantial evidence in this

case indicates that very possibly it was the accused, who raped the

victim before throttling her to death, in view of the FSL report we

cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who

perpetrated the crime of rape on the victim. Hence, the

appellant/accused is entitled to an order of acquittal as regards the

charge of rape.

(35) Resultantly, we uphold the conviction of the appellant for

committing the offence under Section 302 IPC and confirm the

sentence imposed on him on that count and set aside his conviction for

offence under Section 376 IPC and acquit him of the said charge and

consequently the sentence imposed on that count.
21

(36) In the result, the appeal being no. CRA 461 of 2009 is allowed in

part as follows:-

i) The conviction of the appellant accused for

committing offence under Section 376 IPC and the sentence

imposed on him on that count are set aside. The appellant

is acquitted of the charge of commission of offence under

Section 376 of the IPC.

ii) The conviction of the appellant for committing

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is confirmed. The

sentence imposed on the appellant by the Court of Session

on that count is also confirmed. It is, however, directed

that upon the accused serving out the period of 14 years, if

an appropriate application is made for remission, the same

shall be considered by the statutory authority in

accordance with law and shall be disposed of as

expeditiously as may be convenient.

(37) The lower Court records along with a copy of this judgement be

sent down at once to the learned trial Court for necessary action.

(38) Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied

for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
22

I agree.

(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ.)

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation