9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... events also becomes doubtful. Unfortunately, the High Court does not seem to have looked at the evidence from the point of view of the accused who had already secured an acquittal. This is an important perspective as noted in the fourth principle of Chandrappa - Merely because the High Court disagreed (without giving reasons why it did so) with the reasonable and possible view of the Trial Court, on a completely independent analysis of the evidence on record, is not a sound basis to set aside the order of acquittal given by the Trial Court. This is not to say that every fact arrived at or every reason given by the Trial Court must be dealt with - all that it means is that the decision of the Trial Court cannot be ignored or treated as non-existent. The facts of this case demonstrate that the first link in the chain of circumstances is missing. It is only if this first link is established that the subsequent links may be formed on the basis of the last seen theory. But the High Court overlooked the missing link, as it were, and directly applied the last seen theory. In our opinion, this was a rather unsatisfactory way of dealing with the appeal - we are unable to agree with learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. Shyamal and Prosanta came to her house and asked the whereabouts of Paritosh. 6. According to Paritosh's brother Amaresh Saha (PW-1) at about 10.00 p.m. Shyamal and Prosanta came to his house and enquired about Paritosh. 7. Early next morning on 20th May, 1995 Bidyutprava Saha noticed that Paritosh had not eaten his dinner which she had kept for him. She mentioned this to Amaresh and also informed him that Shyamal and Prosanta had come and met her the previous evening at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. During the course of this conversation, Animesh revealed to his father Amaresh that he had seen Paritosh cross the river Ganges the previous evening in a boat along with Shyamal and Prosanta. 8. On receiving this information Amaresh enquired from Shyamal and Prosanta the whereabouts of Paritosh but they informed him that they had seen him across the river with some boys. Later in the day, Amaresh was informed by Dipak and Panchu that they had crossed the river along with Paritosh, Shyamal and Prosanta. After crossing the river, Dipak and Panchu had gone to see the thermal plant and the others had gone in another direction towards the jungle. Dipak and Panch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Feeling aggrieved by their acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the Calcutta High Court against Shyamal and Prosanta. The appeal was allowed by a judgment and order dated 11th March, 2008. State of West Bengal v. Shyamal Saha and Anr., 113 CWN 505. The decision of the Trial Court was reversed and they were convicted for the murder of Paritosh and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of ₹ 5000/- each and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each. 15. According to the High Court, the case of the prosecution hinged, essentially, on the evidence of Dipak and Panchu, as well as of Animesh. The High Court considered their evidence and held that all five (Dipak, Panchu, Paritosh, Shyamal and Prosanta) crossed the river in a boat in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. on 19th May, 1995. This was supported by the testimony of Animesh who also wanted to go along with all of them but was prohibited from doing so by Shyamal. 16. It was also held, on the basis of the post mortem report given by Dr. P.G. Bhattacharya (PW-15) and his testimony that Paritosh died soon after 5.30 p.m. on 19th May, 1995. The High Court came to this conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances. Therefore, we referred to the passage in Sheo Swarup and find that what was stated was as follows: There is in their opinion no foundation for the view, apparently supported by the judgments of some Courts in India, that the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to reverse an order of acquittal on a matter of fact, except in cases in which the lower Court has obstinately blundered, or has through incompetence, stupidity or perversity reached such distorted conclusions as to produce a positive miscarriage of justice, or has in some other way so conducted itself as to produce a glaring miscarriage of justice, or has been tricked by the defence so as to produce a similar result. The legal position was reiterated in Nur Mohammad v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 151 after citing Sheo Swarup and it was held: Their Lordships do not think it necessary to read it all again, but would like to observe that there really is only one principle, in the strict use of the word, laid down there; that is, that the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inciples in Ganpat is as follows: (i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and to come to its own conclusion. (ii) The appellate court can also review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. (iii) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons may set aside the judgment of acquittal. (iv) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable , it is a compelling reason for interference. (v) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the materials placed. (Vide Madan Lal v. State of J and K, (1997) 7 SCC 677, Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450, Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of M.P., (1992) 2 SCC 105 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were examined Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure they neither told him that they had gone to the opposite side of the river nor that Shyamal and Prosanta had gone with Paritosh towards the jungle. There was also no mention of the attendance of Animesh or the dress worn by Paritosh. In other words, they did not mention any of the events said to have taken place in their presence on the evening of 19th May, 1995. From this, it is quite clear that the subsequent statements made by them on oath appear to be add-ons and make believe. This casts serious doubt on their credibility. 25. An independent witness Swapan Kabiraj (PW-8) who is supposed to have seen Dipak, Panchu, Paritosh, Shyamal and Prosanta board the boat to cross the river, turned hostile and denied having made any statement before the Investigating Officer. Snehalata Sarkar (PW-7), wife of the boat owner Asit Sarkar also turned hostile and stated that their boat was, as usual, tied to the ghat and she could not say whether it was taken by any person on that date. 26. However, what is even more important is that Animesh stated in Court that on the morning of 20th May, 1995 he had told his father Amares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to have looked at the evidence from the point of view of the accused who had already secured an acquittal. This is an important perspective as noted in the fourth principle of Chandrappa. The High Court was also obliged to consider (which it did not) whether the view of the Trial Court is a reasonable and possible view (the fifth principle of Chandrappa) or not. Merely because the High Court disagreed (without giving reasons why it did so) with the reasonable and possible view of the Trial Court, on a completely independent analysis of the evidence on record, is not a sound basis to set aside the order of acquittal given by the Trial Court. This is not to say that every fact arrived at or every reason given by the Trial Court must be dealt with - all that it means is that the decision of the Trial Court cannot be ignored or treated as non-existent. 30. What is also important in this case is that it is one of circumstantial evidence. Following the principles laid down in several decisions of this Court beginning with Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 it is clear that the chain of events must be so complete as to leave no room for any other hypo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
