In a recent legal case, the High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, confirming the conviction and sentencing of the accused individuals. The Court’s legal analysis highlighted the significance of witness testimonies, supporting material recoveries, and the establishment of fear created by the accused. The case underscores the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal proceedings and sets a precedent for future cases. Let’s delve into the details of this significant judicial ruling.
Facts
- The High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeals of the accused.
- The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dismissed the appeals of the accused and confirmed their conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Malda
- Accused Goutam Joardar, Kartick Das, Biltu Bhattacharya, Shibu Kahar @ Dodan @ Dhuma, and Raju Rabidas @ Shera were convicted by the Trial Court, but accused Babun Sarkar was acquitted.
- The Trial Court sentenced Goutam Joardar, Shibu Kahar, Kartic Das, Raju Rabidas @ Shera, and Biltu Bhattacharya to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default to undergo six months of additional imprisonment.
- Convicted accused filed Criminal Appeals in the High Court, challenging the Trial Court’s judgment.
- The judgment dated 13.03.2019, currently under challenge, is related to the appeals filed by the convicted accused in the High Court.
- Ajoy Dey, P.W.1 lodged the first information report leading to the registration of the case against the appellants.
- The incident involved the appellants assaulting and shooting the victim in front of the R.S.P. party office, resulting in the victim’s death.
- Weapons, including a revolver, a dagger, and a bhojali, were recovered during the investigation.
- Post mortem revealed a bullet fragment in the victim’s body, which was matched with ballistic reports from seized firearms.
- Charges were framed under Sections 302/120B IPC and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act against the appellants.
- During the trial, 37 witnesses were examined, and various documents were exhibited.
- The defence of the appellants claimed innocence and false implication.
- Six individuals were tried for the offences under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act in the Sessions Trial No.07 of 2012.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- Mr. Gupta argued that besides the testimonies of two witnesses, there was insufficient evidence to justify the conviction of the appellants.
- He referred to various court decisions to support his argument.
- Ms. Mathew, representing the State, countered that the witnesses had initially fled due to fear caused by the accused, and only came forward after the accused were arrested.
- She raised concerns about the delay in recording the witnesses’ statements.
- Mr. Gupta highlighted the delay in recording the statements of the two eyewitnesses, claiming it would be detrimental to the prosecution’s case.
- Ms. Mathew emphasized supporting pieces of material in the form of recoveries as conclusive evidence.
- Recoveries were mentioned as supporting the eye-witness account.
- The argument stressed on the significance of these recoveries in bolstering the case.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- Fear created by the accused is established by the material on record.
- Witnesses did not come forward immediately due to feeling terrorized and frightened.
- Delay in recording statements of witnesses was adequately explained.
- Mere delay in recording statements does not warrant rejection of testimonies.
- The testimonies of PW18 and PW19 were found to be cogent, consistent, and trustworthy.
- There is no reason to take a different view on the matter based on the merits.
- The eye-witness account provided by PW18 and PW19 cannot be discarded.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Affirming the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court
- Dismissed the appeals
- Rejection of the submissions advanced by Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate
Case Title: GOUTAM JOARDAR Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2021 INSC 625)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001181-001181 / 2019
