Kiran Raj

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of multiple appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the murder of Srihari Mondal. The appeals were dismissed, with the court finding the evidence against the accused conclusive and rejecting arguments concerning the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the absence of independent witnesses.

The appeals challenged the conviction and sentencing imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haldia, Purba Medinipur. The bench, comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, reviewed extensive evidence, including multiple eyewitness testimonies, forensic reports, and medical findings, before confirming the judgments of the trial court.

The case stems from an incident on March 27, 2013, when Srihari Mondal was looking for a rickshaw van to transport his injured relative to a hospital. Due to the Holi festival, no rickshaw was available. Mondal remained near a tea stall adjacent to the Ganga Manasa Mandir in Jhikurkhali village. Around 3:00 PM, a group of accused individuals forcibly took Mondal into the house of one of the accused, Bijoy Das, where he was brutally attacked using sharp weapons such as knives, axes, rods, and bamboo sticks.

Eyewitness accounts revealed that Mondal was dragged into the house before being assaulted. Witnesses described the attack as prolonged and vicious, stating that Mondal sustained multiple deep wounds. His left knee and right shoulder were nearly severed. After the assault, the accused dragged his body to a nearby lamppost between two ponds, leaving him there in critical condition. He was later declared dead at a hospital.

The police initiated an investigation upon receiving a written complaint from the deceased's wife. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and forensic evidence was collected, including blood-stained earth from the scene and a broken door from the accused’s house, which was damaged during the attack. The investigation also included medical examinations, statements from key witnesses, and a forensic analysis of the crime scene.

The court examined the testimonies of six eyewitnesses who provided a consistent account of the crime. The bench noted that "each of the accused persons have been named by six eyewitnesses... The accused were stated to be carrying sharp cutting instruments like axe, knives, meat-cutting knives, chicken culling knives, iron rods, and bamboo sticks." The court rejected the defense’s argument that the prosecution failed to establish the individual role of each accused in inflicting injuries, stating that "it is impossible for the post-mortem doctor or the eyewitnesses to identify who inflicted what blow and injury on the victim."

The court dismissed contentions that the absence of independent witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case. The court observed that the eyewitnesses, though related to the deceased, had provided testimonies that were corroborated by forensic and medical evidence. The court referred to precedents stating that a close relative is a natural witness and cannot be discredited solely based on their relationship with the victim.

The medical report detailed extensive injuries, confirming that the assault was carried out with sharp-edged weapons. The post-mortem doctor recorded multiple fractures, deep lacerations, and signs of haemorrhagic shock. The report concluded that the cause of death was "antemortem multiple injuries including head injury, open fracture and dislocation of bones, haemorrhages, and hypovolemic shock."

Additionally, forensic evidence collected from the crime scene supported the testimonies of the witnesses. The blood-stained earth and the broken door of the accused’s house were presented as evidence. The forensic laboratory confirmed the presence of human blood on these materials. The police also presented photographs of the deceased’s body taken shortly after the crime, which further corroborated the injuries described by the witnesses and the post-mortem doctor.

The court found no inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative. The timeline of events, starting from the deceased leaving home, the witnesses seeing him near the tea stall, the attack at the house of the accused, and the subsequent discovery of the body, was found to be logically and factually consistent. The court rejected the argument that the accused could not have known the victim would be at the tea stall at that specific time, stating that "the accused Bijoy Das, whose house is visible from the tea stall, could have easily ascertained the presence of the deceased and assembled the other accused persons."

The defense raised concerns about the lack of forensic analysis on the weapons used in the assault. The court acknowledged this but ruled that the overwhelming testimonial and forensic evidence compensated for the absence of such analysis. The court noted that "the absence of fingerprint reports on the weapons does not diminish the credibility of the eyewitness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence."

The court dismissed all appeals and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The conviction and sentencing under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC were upheld, and the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment. The court ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the trial court for compliance.

Case Title: Anath Bandhu Mondal @ Voutto @ Bhutto v. The State of West Bengal & Connected matters

Case Number: C.R.A. No. 617 of 2017 with C.R.A. No. 521 of 2017 and C.R.A. (DB) No. 173 of 2017

Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]