Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta in its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, delivered a judgment on March 6, 2025, modifying the sentence awarded by the trial court in a long-pending criminal appeal. The bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, adjudicated an appeal against the judgment and sentence dated July 20 and 21, 2005, respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (4), Raghunathpur, Purulia, in Sessions Trial No. 4(a)/01 (Sessions Case No. 17 of 2001). The court reduced the imprisonment term of the convicted individuals while imposing an increased monetary fine.

The case arose from a written complaint filed by Ajit Majhi on May 17, 1997, at Kashipur Police Station, District Purulia. The complaint alleged that at approximately 3:30 p.m. that day, Ajit Majhi was attacked by Kalachand Majhi Gope, Sanjay Majhi Gope, Sridam Majhi Gope, and Smt. Labi Majhi Gope while fetching water from a local pond. His cries for help prompted his grandfather, Khudiram Majhi Gope, along with his parents, to intervene. The accused allegedly assaulted them using sticks and a 'gainti' (iron rod-like weapon with a sharp edge). The altercation resulted in serious injuries, particularly to Khudiram Majhi Gope and Satyabati Majhi Gope, Ajit Majhi’s mother.

Following the incident, a case under Sections 341, 323, 325, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered. After Khudiram Majhi Gope succumbed to his injuries, Section 304 IPC was added. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the four accused under Sections 323, 325, 326, 304, and 34 IPC. The trial commenced after framing of charges on May 17, 2001, against all accused.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Acquittal, Reinstates Murder Conviction Citing Accused’s Failure to Explain Circumstantial Evidence and Secret Cremation

The prosecution presented 13 witnesses, including the complainant, medical professionals, and investigating officers. Among them, PW1 (Ajit Majhi), PW2 (Satyabati Majhi Gope), and PW4 (Dhiren Majhi Gope) were primary eyewitnesses, and their testimonies described the injuries sustained and the nature of the attack. The prosecution also submitted medical reports, forensic evidence, and a post-mortem report as documentary evidence.

During the trial, the defense argued that the accused were falsely implicated due to existing familial disputes and property-related conflicts. The defense counsel contended that the prosecution’s evidence was inconsistent and that there was a lack of independent witnesses to corroborate the claims of the victims.

On July 20, 2005, the trial court convicted Kalachand Majhi Gope and Sanjay Majhi Gope under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. Additionally, Sanjay Majhi Gope was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years with a fine of Rs. 5,000. The sentences were to run concurrently. The other two accused were acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The appellate court conducted a thorough review of the trial court's findings, witness testimonies, and documentary evidence. It observed that the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW4 consistently described the attack and were corroborated by medical records. The court took note of Exhibit 11, the post-mortem report, which indicated that Khudiram Majhi Gope sustained fatal head injuries.

The court stated: "The evidence of PW1 and PW2 remained consistent throughout cross-examination. The medical findings corroborate the nature of injuries sustained, making their testimonies credible." The court further examined the statements of the investigating officer (PW12), who acknowledged lapses in the investigation, including the failure to recover the murder weapon.

Regarding the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, the court noted: "Considering the available evidence, the act of the accused resulted in fatal injuries to Khudiram Majhi Gope. However, the incident occurred in the heat of the moment without premeditation, justifying the application of Section 304 Part II rather than Section 302 IPC."

Also Read: [NDPS Act] Bar On Bail U/S 37 Can Be Relaxed When Contraband 'Marginally' Above Commercial Quantity: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The court also considered the prolonged pendency of the appeal and its impact on the convicted individuals. It remarked: "Given the significant time lapse since the commission of the crime and the suffering of the accused during the prolonged trial, an adjustment in sentencing is warranted."

After considering all aspects, the appellate court altered the sentence as follows:

1. Sanjay Majhi Gope: Sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 3 lakhs, in default of which he must undergo six months' additional RI under Section 304 Part II IPC.

2. Kalachand Majhi Gope and Sanjay Majhi Gope: Sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1 lakh each, in default of which they must undergo three months' RI under Sections 325/34 IPC.

3. The trial court’s sentence under Sections 323/34 IPC remains unchanged.

4. The sentences will run concurrently.

5. The fine amount, if paid, shall be distributed as compensation to the son of the deceased, Dhiren Majhi Gope, or his legal heirs under Section 357 CrPC.

6. The appellants must surrender before the trial court within 30 days, failing which non-bailable warrants shall be issued for their arrest.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the appellants: Mani Sankar Chattopadhyay, Shalini Singh

For the respondent/State: Binay Panda, Subham Bhakat

Case Title: Sanjay Majhi Gope & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: C.R.A. No. 510 of 2005

Bench: Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

[Read/Download order]