Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 850 (CAL)

Abani Kuiry v. State of W. B

2008-08-22

G.C.GUPTA

body2008
Judgment :- GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J (1) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment dated 17th September 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Purulia, in Sessions Trial no. 22 of 2003 arising out of Sessions Case No. 53 of 2001 convicting the appellants under sections 324, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and an order dated 18th September 2004 by which the convicts were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Both the sentences were however directed to run concurrently. Both the convicts namely Abani and Paban have come up in appeal. (2) BRIEFLY stated the facts and circumstances of this case are as follows:-On 26th February 1994 a hecalf belonging to the accused persons died. The accused persons suspected that Fekui by her witchcraft was instrumental in causing the death of the said hecalf. On 28th February 1994 at about 8. 30 P. M. in the evening the accused persons armed with lethal weapons raided the house of the victim demanding compensation for the loss arising out of the death of the said hecalf. The deceased fekui, her husband Ranjit and the rest of the members of their family came out. Fekui tried to reason with the accused persons. She told that she knew nothing about the witchcraft. The accused persons were not prepared to accept the explanation. They started assaulting Fekui with deadly weapons like tangi, spear ect. After Fekui had fallen down her husband came to her rescue. He was also severely beaten up. The rest of the members of the family of the victims did not dare to resist the accused persons. After the husband and the wife were badly injured, the accused persons left the place of occurrence. The sons of the victims took them to the police station where the statement of the victims was recorded by the police. A written complaint was also lodged by the P. W. 1 Meghnad, one of the sons of the victims. After the husband and the wife were badly injured, the accused persons left the place of occurrence. The sons of the victims took them to the police station where the statement of the victims was recorded by the police. A written complaint was also lodged by the P. W. 1 Meghnad, one of the sons of the victims. On the basis of the written complaint, a case under sections 324,325,326, 307 read with section 34 of the indian Penal Code against the five accused persons was started. The victims were referred to Jhalda Public Health Center. From the Jhalda Public Health Center the victims were referred to Purulia S. D. Hospital. From the Purulia S. D. Hospital they were referred to Bankuara Hospital. On the way to the Bankura Hospital Fekui succumbed to her injury. Her husband however survived. A bloodstained muffler belonging to the accused Abani was seized from the place of occurrence by the police. The offending weapon was also seized by the police on 3rd March 1994, vide seizure list being Ext. 6 series, kept hidden in the vegetable garden belonging to the accused Abani kuiry on the basis of the statement made by Abani while he was in custody in the presence of the witnesses. Ultimately eight persons were charged under sections 148,302 read with sections 149 and 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellants Pawan and Abani under sections 302 and 324 both read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of the coaccused were however acquitted of all the charges. (3) MR. Pal, learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal, drew our attention to the evidence of the P. W. 10 Dr. Bhowmik who had the occasion to examine the deceased Fekui and her husband Ranjit on 28th February 1994. He also drew our attention to the evidence of Dr. Pakrashi (P. W. 11) who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Fekui. The P. W. 10 Dr. Bhowmik deposed that both fekui and her husband Ranjit were examined by him. Both of them had suffered from grievous injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon like tangee, tabla etc. P. W. 11the autopsy Surgeon, Dr. Pakrashi deposed that the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased Fekui:- "1. The P. W. 10 Dr. Bhowmik deposed that both fekui and her husband Ranjit were examined by him. Both of them had suffered from grievous injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon like tangee, tabla etc. P. W. 11the autopsy Surgeon, Dr. Pakrashi deposed that the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased Fekui:- "1. Sharp cut injury over right side of face and right frontal region of scalp along right border of nose and medial aspect of right eye about 8"" inches length X 1" gap X bone cut- brain matter was coming out. 2. Sharp cut injury over right maxilla 3" length X cutting whole thickness of maxilla. 3. Sharp cut injury over posterior aspect of right arm 2" length X "" gap x muscle deep. The membranes covering brain matter were found to be ruptured. Heart was emptyon both sides. Cause of death in my opinion was due to shock and haemorrhage associated with head injury as a result of the above-mentioned injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and caused by heavy cutting weapon. " He further deposed that the injury number one was alone sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In his cross-examination he deposed as follows:-"injury no. 2 and 3 collectively might have caused death in ordinary course of nature but injury no. 3 is not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. " Mr. Pal, learned Advocate argued that the 3rd injury on the posterior aspect of the right arm of the deceased according to the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution was inflicted by the accused Paban which according to the Autopsy surgeon was not fatal nor was the same sufficient to cause death. The learned Counsel urged that considering that the injury inflicted by the accused Paban was not fatal, he should be spared. No submission as regards the conviction of the accused Abani was advanced nor was any other or further submission made. (4) MR. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the accused persons in a group raided the house of the victims armed with lethal weapons; inflicted indiscriminate injuries with sharp cutting weapons like spear, tangi etc. and therefore each of the accused is vicariously liable for the activity of each other. (4) MR. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the accused persons in a group raided the house of the victims armed with lethal weapons; inflicted indiscriminate injuries with sharp cutting weapons like spear, tangi etc. and therefore each of the accused is vicariously liable for the activity of each other. They had raided the house of the victim with the common object of killing the deceased Fekui who according to their misconceived notion was a witch. This type of crime is rampant in the rural Bengal and there is no scope for any leniency. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellant, according to him, is neither tenable in law nor should the same be accepted. There is a lot of substance in the submission of Mr. Goswami that there is an element of vicarious liability where a crime is perpetrated by several persons sharing common object or common intention. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in the case of W. Slaney vs. State of M. P. reported in AIR 1956 SC 116 wherein Their Lordships held as follows:- sections 34,114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code provide for criminal liability viewed from different angles as regards actual participants, accessories and men actuated by a common object or a common intention; "and the charge is a rolled-up one involving the direct liability and the constructive liability" without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to be made constructively liable. " It is not therefore possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. There is no scope to interfere with the judgment and the sentences passed by the learned Trial Court. (5) THE appeal is, as such, dismissed. The appellant no. 2 Paban Kuiry, it appears, was released on bail by an order dated 5th January 2007 passed by this Court. His bail-bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to the bail to serve out the remainder part of the sentence notice of which is also given through the learned counsel appearing before us. The appellant no. 1 Abani Kuiry who is already in jail is directed to serve out the rest of the sentence. Lower Court Records with a copy of this judgment be sent down forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action.