2001 (4) TMI 914 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder.
2. Reliability of witness testimony against appellant Nasim @ Naso.
3. Voluntariness and admissibility of appellant Lokeman Shah's confessional statement.
4. Application of Section 149 of IPC regarding common object of unlawful assembly.
5. Appropriateness of death penalty versus life imprisonment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of the Appellants for Murder:
The incident occurred on 18.3.1984 during communal riots in Calcutta, resulting in the murder of a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and his security guard. The trial court initially sentenced four accused to death, but upon retrial, only two (the appellants) were convicted and sentenced to death. The High Court upheld the death penalty for Nasim @ Naso and commuted Lokeman Shah's sentence to life imprisonment. Both appellants filed appeals, and the State of West Bengal sought enhancement of Lokeman Shah's sentence to death.

2. Reliability of Witness Testimony Against Appellant Nasim @ Naso:
The key witness, PW-24 Md. Hadis Khan, testified that he saw Nasim @ Naso inflict fatal blows on the DCP with an iron rod. The trial court and High Court found PW-24's testimony reliable, corroborated by PW-21 Abdul Latif Khan's statement that his son (PW-24) witnessed the assault. The Supreme Court noted that PW-24 had no bias against Nasim @ Naso and was a natural witness to the incident, which occurred in his own house. The Court found no reason to dissent from the lower courts' findings regarding Nasim @ Naso's involvement in the murder.

3. Voluntariness and Admissibility of Appellant Lokeman Shah's Confessional Statement:
Lokeman Shah's conviction was based on his confessional statement (Ext.13) recorded by PW-51 P.K. Deb (Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate). The defense argued that the statement was not voluntary and lacked corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the statement, when read as a whole, was incriminatory and thus confessional. The Court rejected the argument that the confession required corroboration, citing precedents that a true and reliable confession can form the basis of conviction. The Court also dismissed the claim that the confession was involuntary, noting the absence of evidence of physical torture or procedural irregularities by the Judicial Magistrate.

4. Application of Section 149 of IPC Regarding Common Object of Unlawful Assembly:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether Lokeman Shah shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. The confession indicated his involvement in the riot and his participation in the assault on the DCP. The Court emphasized that common object is often inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the assembly members. The Court concluded that Lokeman Shah knowingly joined an unlawful assembly with the common object of chasing and attacking perceived defilers of the mosque, thus satisfying the requirements of Section 149 of IPC.

5. Appropriateness of Death Penalty Versus Life Imprisonment:
The Supreme Court considered the appropriateness of the death penalty for Nasim @ Naso. The Court acknowledged the appellants acted under communal frenzy, influenced by ignorance and indoctrination, and lacked prior enmity or acquaintance with the victims. The Court expressed difficulty in categorizing the case as the "rarest of the rare" warranting the death penalty. Consequently, the Court altered Nasim @ Naso's sentence to life imprisonment while dismissing both appeals, thereby upholding the convictions but modifying the sentences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of both appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court found the witness testimony against Nasim @ Naso reliable and Lokeman Shah's confessional statement admissible. The Court concluded that both appellants shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. However, the Court commuted Nasim @ Naso's death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the mitigating circumstances of communal frenzy and lack of premeditated intent. The appeals were dismissed with this modification in sentencing.