Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking Special Leave to Appeal against the Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner herein was alleged to have gone along with his brother-in-law on 17.04.2001 to the house of the complainant, where he was working as a servant, and demanded money from the complainant’s sister. It was further alleged that subsequently, the Petitioner attacked the complainant’s sister causing her bleeding injury and locked her forcibly in a room within the house. The Petitioner and the co-accused then killed the mother of the complainant by strangulation. The accused persons opened the almirah and took away gold ornaments and jewellery. The case of the prosecution was that due to alarm raised by the complainant’s sister, the neighbours reached the house and one of them informed the complainant of the incident over the phone. The complainant allegedly reached the house and found his sister to be injured and his mother to be dead. FIR was registered u/s 381/ 302/ 34 IPC at Lake Town PS, West Bengal. The Petitioner and the co-accused were arrested with the help of Orissa Police. Charges were framed against the Petitioner and the co-accused under Sections 394/ 302/ 307/ 34 and Section 411 of the IPC. After examination of total of 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses and examination of the Petitioner and the co-accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to convict the Petitioner and the co-accused.
SC’s Observations:
SC observed that the incident in question and subject matter of conviction had occurred on 17th April 2001. The appellant before has raised the plea of juvenility on the date of the offence by placing reliance upon the certificate dated 19th February 2021. This plea was not raised before the Trial Court or the High Court.
SC stated that this Court had directed the Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, Odisha to examine the original school records and to record statement of the Head Master of the school who had issued the certificate. This order mentions that in the certificate relied upon by the appellant, there is a difference in the date of birth recorded in figures and words. The date of birth as mentioned in figures is “20.05.1984”, while the date of birth in words is “20th July Nineteen Hundred Eighty-Four”.
SC found that the District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak submitted his report stating that the date of birth of the appellant as recorded in the school records is 20th May 1984, and that inadvertently the date of birth mentioned in the certificate in words was written as “20th July Nineteen Hundred Eighty-Four”. On receipt of the said report, the Court had issued notice in the Special Leave Petition.
SC observed that this Court had directed the District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak to conduct further inquiry as to the date of birth of the appellant and submit a report after recording evidence. The respondent was directed to ensure necessary cooperation by deputing a competent representative on behalf of the State so that the records can be duly scrutinised and verified. SC found that the District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak has submitted his report which refers to the statement made by Hemanta Behera, brother of the appellant, and the statement of Shantanu Koar, Assistant Commissioner of Police. On the basis of evidence adduced and relying upon the Transfer Certificate and school records, the report states that the date of birth of the appellant is 20th May 1984.
SC Held:
The Supreme Court held that “During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that the appellant has already suffered incarceration of more than twenty years. The jail authorities, after considering the conduct of the appellant, have recommended premature release/remission of sentence. The issue is now pending before the competent authorities. We direct release of the appellant from jail on suspension of sentence on appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the trial court. In the meanwhile, we direct that the State of West Bengal shall consider and decide the request for premature release/remission within a period of two months from today.”
Bench: Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Case Title: Sagar Behara v. State of West Bengal
Case Details: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2022
Picture Source :
