Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasanta Pramanik @ Chotu Bhodu vs State Of West Bengal on 1 December, 2022
Sl. No. 150
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.A. 751 of 2014
Prasanta Pramanik @ Chotu Bhodu
-Vs-
State of West Bengal
For the appellant : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Sen, Adv.
Mr. Sagnik Bhattacharya, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned APP
Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Adv.
Heard on : 1st December, 2022
Judgment on : 1st December, 2022
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
30.01.2014
and 31.01.2014 passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baruipur, South 24-Parganas in
Sessions Case No. 47(12)2012 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.
11(1)2013 convicting the appellant for commission of offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing
him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence of murder
and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect
that on Independence Day i.e. on 15th August, 2012 in the afternoon
the appellant came to Ekotasangha Club in an inebriated condition.
Members of the club including one Abhijit Mondal were playing cards in
the club premises. There was an altercation between Abhijit and the
appellant. Other club members separated them. Thereupon appellant
returned home. Soon thereafter, he came back with a knife and
assaulted Abhijit on the head and chest with the knife in front of the
club. As a result Abhijit fell down. He was removed to the hospital. On
the next day he expired.
Sandhya Mondal, mother of the victim (P.W. 1) lodged written
complaint. In the compliant she stated Abhijit had gone to the club to
celebrate Independence Day. Around 4.00 p.m. she came to know he
had been stabbed by the appellant and was admitted at Calcutta
National Medical College and Hospital. She rushed to the hospital and
saw her son. On the next day at 3.00 a.m. he expired.
In the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested.
Offending knife was recovered. It was sent for FSL examination. In
conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
appellant. Charge was framed under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. To prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and
exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of
innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, learned trial
Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced
the appellant, as aforesaid.
For the appellant it is argued that his client has been falsely
implicated due to prior enmity. Genesis of the incident is in doubt.
P.W. 9 treated the victim first. He deposed he was told the victim had
suffered injuries due to fall from a van. This wholly improbabilises the
prosecution case. Prosecution case, therefore, is not proved beyond
doubt.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submits P.Ws.
2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are eye-witnesses. Initially, appellant had come to the
club in a drunken condition. He had an altercation with the victim.
Thereafter he left the spot. Then he returned to the club with a knife
and stabbed him on his head and chest. Ocular evidence is supported
by medical evidence on record. Prosecution case is proved beyond
doubt.
P.W. 1 (Sandhya Mondal) is the mother of the deceased. She is a
post-occurrence witness. She lodged written complaint which was
exhibited as "Exbt.-1".
P.Ws. 2 to 8 were present in the club room on the fateful day.
P.W. 2 (Raju Mondal) stated around 2-2.30 p.m. appellant entered
the club premises in an inebriated condition. There he quarrelled with
Abhijit Mondal. Thereafter, he left the club. After sometime, the
appellant came back with a knife. He assaulted Abhijit on the chest and
head. Abhijit suffered bleeding injuries. He was admitted to hospital. On
the next day he expired. P.W. 2 made statement before the learned
Magistrate.
P.W. 3 (Subrata Pramanick) has corroborated P.W. 2. He also
deposed appellant had initially come to the club room in a drunken
condition. He had a skirmish with Abhijit. Thereafter, he returned
home. After sometime, he came back with a knife and assaulted Abhijit
on his forehead and chest. Abhijit was admitted to hospital and expired
on the next day.
P.W. 4 (Subhas Banshi), P.Ws. 2 and 3, P.W. 7 (Kuheli Banshi)
and P.W. 8 (Kalidashi Pramanik) are also eye-witnesses to the incident
who have corroborated the evidence of other witnesses.
P.Ws. 5 (Debdas Mondal) and P.W 6 (Apurba Pramanik) were also
present in the club. They deposed with regard to the first incident.
Hearing hue and cry they came out of the room and found Abhijit
Mondal had suffered bleeding injuries on the head and chest at the
behest of the appellant.
These are the witnesses to the incident.
PW13, Dr. Molly Banerjee is the post mortem doctor. He found a
number of injuries on the deceased including,
"One stitched up wound ½" long (one stich) with a
surrounding of zone of contusion 2"X 1 ½": over the left
frontal eminence - one removal of the stitch, it is found to
be lacerated in nature and of bone depth.
One stitch up wound 1 ½"long (five stitches) placed over
the middle of the anterior aspect of left side of chest wall,
placed longitudunally, placed 3 ½"to left of anterior midline
and the lower end, 4ft. above left heel, on removal of the
stitches, it is found to be penetrating in nature and the
bone depth. On tracing the tract, it is found to have pierced
the skin fascese, musselles, vessels and nerves passing
through the 4th intercostal space with fracture of middle of
5th rib of left side with extravasetion of blood 6"/ 4" difused
in and around, piercing through and through the lingual
lobe of left lungs and it's over lying pleura to pierce the
pericardium and the anterior aspect of left side of heart
through the left ventrical and finally terminating into the
left ventricular cavity with a fair amount of fluid and
clotted blood in the mediastinum, the direction of the
wound is upwards, backwards and medially."
He opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. He proved the
post mortem report, Ext.14.
PW9, Golam Kader Gayen deposed on 15.8.2012 a patient was
brought to his chamber. The persons who brought the patient told him
he had suffered injuries due to fall from a van. He saw that the patient
was injured on his chest and head. But he did not treat the patient.
P.W. 10, Subir Das is the Investigating Officer of the case. He
visited the place of occurrence and drew up rough sketch map. He
examined witnesses. He seized the offending weapon. He sent it for FSL
examination. He also seized wearing apparels and other articles which
were sent for FSL examination. He submitted charge sheet.
Evidence of the eye witnesses particularly P.Ws. 2 to 4, 7 and 8
unequivocally established that the appellant had struck the victim with
a knife on the head and chest.
Their ocular version is corroborated by the injuries found on the
head and chest of the deceased by post mortem doctor, PW13.
Learned Advocate for the appellant strenuously argues genesis of
the prosecution case is doubtful. The victim was taken to a doctor
(PW9) on the first occasion. P.W. 9 was told victim had suffered injuries
due to fall from a van. Hence, the prosecution case of assault is
doubtful.
In view of the aforesaid clinching evidence of the eye witnesses
which is corroborated by the post mortem doctor, I am of the opinion
the vague and evasive explanation with regard to the cause of injury on
the victim before a local doctor does not erode the credibility of the
prosecution case. I am emboldened to come to such conclusion as the
nature of injuries, i.e., penetrating injuries on the head and chest of the
victim by no stretch of imagination could have been caused due to a
fall. There may be many reasons why the members of the club who had
taken the victim to the local doctor may not have initially disclosed the
involvement of the appellant as the latter was also well-acquainted with
them. However, the patent improbability of the explanation offered with
regard to the cause of injury before P.W. 9 and the unequivocal ocular
evidence on record removes any semblance of doubt with regard to
implication of the appellant in the crime.
Finally, it is argued that the incident occurred in the course of a
quarrel. Conviction of the appellant may be altered to culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
I am unable to accede to such submission for the following
reasons:-
Initially, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the
deceased. Appellant did not strike the deceased in the course of such
skirmish. On the other hand, he returned home and came back armed
with a knife. Then he assaulted him on his head and chest i.e. vital
parts of the body. This conduct of the appellant clearly establishes his
intention to cause death. Moreover, self intoxication does not reduce
culpability of the offender.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I uphold the conviction and
sentence of the appellant.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Period of detention suffered by the appellant during
investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive
sentence imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be
forthwith sent down to the trial court at once.
Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be
made available to the appellant upon completion of all formalities.
I agree.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
sdas/as/PA
