Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 293 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Anantlal Ghosh
RESPONDENT:
State of West Bengal
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/09/2005
BENCH:
H.K. Sema & Tarun Chatterjee
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
SEMA, J.
The appellant alongwith 7 accused were put to trial under Sections 302 IPC
and 201 read with 34 IPC. Six accused were acquitted by the trial court.
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 IPC and 201 read with 34 IPC
and sentenced to R.I. for life under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was
also convicted under Section 201/34 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for five
years and a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default further R.I. for six months’. The
other accused was also convicted under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and was
sentenced to four years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default further
three months’ R.I. It appears that he has already undergone the sentence
and conviction recorded against him.
This appeal is filed by the accused Anantalal Ghosh who was convicted under
Section 302/201/34 IPC by special leave.
Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The conviction is
based on the circumstantial evidence. Both the trial court and the High
Court recorded the conviction against the appellant on the basis of the
evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3. It is now established principle of law
that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis except that
of the 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.
The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence found following
circumstances well established against the appellant :
1. That it was the fact that the deceased Lilabati bore marks of certain
injuries which has been stated in the evidence of PW.1 and mentioned in FIR
(Ext.1) corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4.
2. That the evidence of Pws .2, 3 and 4 with regard to the fact that they
were threatened to leave the place and the body of Lilabati was hurriedly
taken for cremation.
3. That the fact that no information was given to the police and the police
could not see the dead body.
4. That PW.8 was sent by the mother of the appellant to inform PW.1 and his
parents that Lilabati was attacked by diarrhea and the body was kept till
the time of their arrival does not establish that the Lilabati died of
diarrhea.
5. That PW.2 in his evidence stated that he learnt from the appellant that
there was an altercation between the appellant and Lilabati and a rope on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
her waist was found below a Krishnachura tree. This testimony of PW.2 could
not be shaken in the cross-examination.
6. That the statement of PW.2 has been well corroborated by the statements
of Pws.3 and 4.
7. That the appellant and the deceased Lilabati spent a night together
previous to the date of incident and seizure of the rope under the Seizure
List (Ext.2).
8. It is well within the knowledge of the appellant and who only could
explain the circumstances leading to the cause of death of Lilabati.
9. Last but not the least, the conduct of the appellant in cremating the
dead body of the deceased hurriedly before the arrival of the police, when
relatives went to call the police after noticing the injury marks on the
body of the deceased.
All these circumstances appearing against the appellant remain unimpeached.
In our view, the testimony of Pws.2, 3 and 4 alongwith other incriminating
materials relied upon by the prosecution taken cumulatively would
consistently point to the guilt of the accused and inconsistence with his
innocence. In our view, the prosecution has been able to establish the
chain of circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt consistently pointing
out to the guilt of the accused.
In the reasons aforestated, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed.