REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 17 OF 2002        

ASHOK KUMAR MONDAL ...   Appellant(s)                         Versus    SAMIR KUMAR MONDAL & ANR. ...  Respondent(s)

WITH Crl. A. No. 361/2002

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Heard.

In both these appeals challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of

the Calcutta High Court directing acquittal of the respondent Samir Kumar Mondal

who was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum, Rampurhat for

offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

'IPC).  He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years.  

The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is that on 24.01.1988 in

the early morning when Gouri Balal Mondal wife of the deceased was engaged in

washing utensils,  her husband's elder brother accused Benoy Kumar Mondal (who

was acquitted)  was cleaning the road with broom stick.  At that time, some dust

particles fell on the person of  Gouri

-2-

Bala, as a reason whereof, there was exchange of hot words amongst her husband, two

sons with the accused and his father. At that time, the accused Samir Kumar Mondal

stated to have brought a crowbar  and stuck on  the head  on  Ajit Kumar  Mondal,

husband of PW2; as a consequence whereof, father of PW1 became unconscious and

sustained bleeding injuries.  He was taken to the Primary Health Centre but later

shifted to Suri Sadar Hospital.  He succumbed to the injuries.  On the next date i.e  on

25.01.2008 first information report was lodged at the police station.  The prosecution

relied on the evidence of four persons who are stated to be eye-witnesses.  The trial

court on the basis of evidence brought on record found the respondent Samir Kumar

Mondal to be guilty as noted above and convicted him.  In appeal, the High Court

found that the evidence of the witness do not inspire confidence and not reliable,

genesis of the prosecution story was suppressed and therefore it was

unsafe to rely on the witnesses.  

Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State of West

Bengal submitted that the reasonings of the High Court are contrary to the evidence

and material on record.  Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment

of the High Court.  

We find that the High Court has analysed the evidence and has come to a

categorical conclusion that there

-3-

was discrepancy between the injuries and also of size of the injuries as stated by the

Doctor. The eye-witnesses were not reliable.  The genesis of the prosecution version is

doubtful.  The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and we do not consider

these appeals to be  fit cases where any interference is called for.

The appeals are dismissed accordingly.

              ...................J.                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)   

             ....................J.                           (C.K.THAKKER)              

  ....................J.                              (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

New Delhi, October 21, 2008.