Calcutta High Court: In an appeal against conviction, a single-judge bench comprising of Rai Chattopadhyay,* J., after considering the consistent evidence and absence of substantial contradictions concurred with the trial court’s findings and upheld the conviction under Section 304 IPC. The Court modified the sentence based on the appellant’s period of incarceration.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, a FIR was filed on 30-05-2007 by the complainant, reporting the alleged homicidal death of his sister on 27-05-2007. The appellant, husband of the victim, was accused of demanding dowry and subjecting the victim to torture. The victim previously filed a police case in 1999, alleging torture and was allegedly assaulted by the appellant on 27-05-2007, leading to her death on 28-05-2007.
The charges were framed on for offenses under Sections 498-A and 304 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant was found guilty, sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and fined Rs. 10,000/-, with default leading to six months of simple imprisonment.
The appellant challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge for the commission of offenses under Sections 498A and 304 of the IPC.
Contentions
The appellant contended that the trial court’s judgment lacked proper consideration of the evidence and contravened established laws. The appellant pleaded for setting aside the conviction and sentence, citing flaws in the trial court’s judgment.
The Amicus Curiae stated that the present case is based on hearsay evidence, lacking an eyewitness. Moreover, there exists an incomplete and inconsistent chain of circumstances. The Amicus Curiae stated that the delay in lodging FIR raises doubts about its reliability. It was stated that there exist contradictions between medical and oral evidence and motive was also not established. It was also stated that a previous acquittal under Section 498A weakens claims of mental and physical torture.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined evidence, including medical reports presented by the autopsy surgeon confirmed the victim’s fatal injuries caused by a blunt weapon, witness testimonies, and the appellant’s presence at the crime scene, statutory presumption, and the motive arising from a previous case against him.
The Court observed that the trial court acquitted the appellant under Section 498A but found him guilty under Section 304 of the IPC. The Court concurred with the trial court’s meticulous examination of the evidence, finding the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found no loopholes in the trial court’s evaluation of evidence and upheld the conviction under Section 304 IPC. Considering the appellant’s time served and a report indicating sentence remission, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone.
Court’s Decision
While disposing of the appeal, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 304 of the IPC. The Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. The Court expressed appreciation for the assistance of the appointed Amicus Curiae.
[Debabrata Giri v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4734, order dated 29-11-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Palash Chandra Majhi, Counsel for the Amicus Curiae
Mr. Binay Panda, Mr. Subham Bhakat, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
