Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1268 OF 2007  

GUIRAM MONDAL .. Appellant

Versus

STATE OF WEST BENGAL         .. Respondent

 J U D G M E N T  

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J

1. The appellant,  the 10th accused in  Sessions Case No.20 of  

1986,  was  charge-sheeted  along  with  others  for  the  offences  

punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323 and 302 of the Indian  

Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.  The Trial Court,  

after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence vide its  

judgment  dated  22.4.1987  acquitted  all  the  accused  persons,  

except  Accused No.3 Tarun Mondal,  who was convicted for  the

Page 2

2

offences punishable under Section148 and 302 of IPC for causing  

the  murder  of  Amrita  Dome  and  sentenced  him  to  suffer  

imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC.   

2. The State of West Bengal, aggrieved by the order of acquittal,  

preferred G.A. No.22 of 1987 before the High Court of Calcutta.  

The High Court vide its judgment dated 28.11.2006 partly allowed  

the  appeal  and convicted  the  appellant  along with  four  others,  

while maintaining the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court,  

in  respect  of  rest  of  the  accused  persons.   Tarun  Mondal,  3rd  

accused, was further found guilty of the murder of Sultan Khan.

3. We are, in this case, concerned only with the appeal filed by  

Guiram Mondal, 10th accused.  The prosecution case, in short, is  

that on 26.4.1984 at about 12 hours the accused persons formed  

an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and took along with  

them Amrita  Dome and Sultan  Khan through a  kuchha road in  

village Pechaliya and, in the process, assaulted both Amrita Dome  

and Sultan Khan.  Some of the witnesses, who are relatives of the  

deceased  Amrita  Dome,  tried  to  save  him  but  they  were  also

Page 3

3

assaulted by the accused persons and the informant Sadananda  

Dome (PW1) was shot at by a pipe-gun and he sustained injuries.  

While the accused persons were proceeding as such, Amrita Dome  

managed to escape from their  clutches and took shelter  in  the  

house of Monohar Mondal @ Manu Mondal (PW2).  The accused  

persons, however,  chased Amrita Dome and brought him out of  

the  house  of  Manu  Mondal  and  killed  him  in  the  passage  or  

pathway lying between the house of Manu Mondal and his nephew  

Sahadeb Mondal.  Accused persons after murdering Amrita Dome  

left the spot to chase Sultan Khan, who was left injured in front of  

Durga temple which was close to the house of Monohar Mondal.  

Sultan Khan was also murdered by them and they carried away his  

death body to the grazing field and left it there.   

4. Sadananda Dome (PW1) then passed this information, which  

was recorded in writing by PW 15 on 26.4.1984 at 6.05 PM and the  

same was treated as the FIR.  The same was sent to the police  

station and was received there at 7.25 PM and on the basis of that  

FIR a case was registered against the accused persons and they  

were charge-sheeted for the offences, already mentioned earlier.

Page 4

4

PW 15,  the Investigating Officer  visited the place of occurrence  

and prepared the sketch map and conducted the inquest in the  

presence of PW 10, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and sent  

both  the  dead  bodies  for  post-mortem  examination  through  

constable PW 13.   

5. PW 12 Dr. S. Nath, conducted the post-mortem on both the  

dead bodies and opined that the death was due to effect of head  

injury  and  associated  injuries  which  were  anti  mortem  and  

homicidal in nature.  PW 15 on 13.5.1984 arrested various accused  

persons including the appellant and were brought before the trial  

court.   On  the  side  of  the  prosecution  16  witnesses  were  

examined.   PW  1  Sadananda  Dome,  the  first  informant  is  the  

brother  of  the  deceased  Amrita  Dome.     Monohar  Mondal,  in  

whose  house  the  deceased  Amrita  Dome  took  shelter,  was  

examined  as  PW2.     Menoka  Dome,  wife  of  deceased  Amrita  

Dome, was also examined as PW 3 and Sankar Dome, the father of  

the deceased Amrita Dome was also examined as PW 5.  On the  

side of the defence, Joydev Garian DW1 was examined.  

Page 5

5

6. Dr. S. Nath was examined as PW12, who conducted the post-

mortem on the dead bodies on 27.4.1984 deposed that  on the  

dead body of  Amrita Dome he found (1)  one incised wound on  

right  lateral  aspect  of  forehead 2.5” x 2” x .5”  (2)  one incised  

wound in  mid-region of  forehead 3”  x  2”  x  .5”  (3)  one incised  

would 3” below the midpoint of chin 4” x 2” x 2.5” laryns and  

tranches cut off.  He also noticed fracture of 4th, 5th ^ 6th ribs on  

the right side (2) fracture of 4th and 5th ribs on the right side (3)  

right  lung  was  found  ruptured.   Further,  it  was  also  noticed  a  

fracture of frontal bone.  PW 12 has opined that the death was due  

to  the  effects  of  head  injury  and  associated  injury  was  ante  

mortem  and  homicidal  in  nature.   PW12  conducted  the  post-

mortem over  the dead body of  Sultan Khan and found (1)  one  

incised would 3” x 2” x 1” on back portion of head (2) one incised  

would on left lateral aspect of neck 2” x 1.5” x 1” and (3) one  

incised would 4” x 3” x 5” x4” aspect of neck 2” x 1.5” x 1”.  He  

also found fracture of 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rib of the right side and  

fracture of 4th, 5th and 6th ribs of the left side.  He found fracture of  

occipital bone and both the lungs were ruptured.  In his opinion,

Page 6

6

death was due to head injury and associated injury ante mortem  

and homicidal in nature.

7. PW 1, the brother of the deceased Amrita Dome, who is also  

an injured witness, had clearly and unequivocally supported the  

prosecution case and stated that he had seen the accused persons  

armed with deadly weapons like bhojali, axe, pipe gun and dragger  

etc.  catching  hold  of  his  brother  Amrita  Dome and  one  Sultan  

Khan.   Amrita Dome had managed to escape from the clutches of  

the accused persons and took shelter  in  the house of  Monohar  

Mondal.  PW1 also deposed that Sultan Khan in that process was  

half dead and lying in front of Durga Temple.  PW 1 deposed that  

the  accused  persons  took  Amrita  Dome  out  of  the  house  of  

Monohar Mondal and assaulted with lathi, dagger, bhojali etc.  PW  

1 stated that he tried to save his elder brother but was shot at by  

a pipe-gun which caused injury on his shoulder.  PW 1 also noticed  

that  Kristo Gorain cut  the throat  of  Sultan Khan and thereafter  

brought Sultan Khan to a grazing field and left the body there.

Page 7

7

8. We  have  also  gone  through  the  evidence  of  the  eye-

witnesses PWs 2, 3,  4,  8 and 11 and their versions corroborate  

fully  the  version  of  PW 1,  the  first  informant  and  eye-witness,  

relating to the incident of assault and murder of Amrita Dome and  

Sultan  Khan.   The  specific  part  played  by  the  various  accused  

persons,  including  the  appellant,  has  been  narrated  by  those  

witnesses.  PW 2 had deposed that on the date of the incident he  

was in the cow-shed and as soon as he heard a hue and cry, he  

came out and found that some persons, including the appellant,  

forcibly taking away Amrita Dome from the house of Manu Mondal.  

PW 2 had also requested the accused persons to not to assault  

Amrita Dome but was pushed away by the accused persons.  Later  

he found Amrita Dome dead and the body was lying on the path-

way between his house and the house of Sadananda Mondal.

9. PW  3,  the  wife  of  Amrita  Dome,  also  fully  supported  the  

prosecution  case  and  also  PW8,  the  mother  of  the  deceased  

Amrita Dome and P.W.11, the wife of the brother of the deceased.  

The High Court has correctly appreciated the evidence rendered  

by those witnesses.  The High Court after examining the oral and

Page 8

8

documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the trial court  

was  completely  in  error  by  over-looking  some  crucial  and  

important evidence and placed much reliance on non-mention of  

name of accused persons in the inquest report.  The High Court, in  

our view, correctly applied the legal principle that non-mention of  

name of the few accused persons in the inquest report is of no  

consequence.

10. The inquest report normally would not contain the manner in  

which the incident took place or the names of eye-witnesses as  

well as names of accused persons.  The basic purpose of holding  

an  inquest  is  to  report  regarding  the  cause  of  death,  namely  

whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental etc.   Reference may  

be made to the Judgment of this Court in Pedda Narayana and  

others  v.  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  (1975)  4  SCC  153  and  

Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Others (2003) 2 SCC 518.  

In  Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Others v.  State of  

U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450, this Court held that the scope of inquest is  

limited  and  is  confined  to  ascertainment  of  apparent  cause  of  

death.  Inquest is concerned with discovering whether in a given

Page 9

9

case the death was accident, suicidal or homicidal,  and in what  

manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body  

appear to have been inflicted.  The details of overt acts need not  

be recorded in the inquest report.  The High Court has rightly held  

that the manner and approach of the trial court in disbelieving the  

prosecution story by placing reliance on the inquest report was  

erroneous and bad in law.   

11. We also fully  agree with the views expressed by the High  

Court  that  the  FIR  was  not  anti  dated,  anti  timed  or  was  

subsequently  created.   The  verbal  submission  of  PW  1  was  

reduced into writing by PW 15 and the same was treated as the  

FIR (Ext.3).  The formal FIR was marked ext.3/3.  Those documents  

would clearly indicate that the incident took place on 26.4.1984 at  

about 12 hrs and the FIR was recorded at village Pechaliya at 6.05  

PM and after it was sent to the Khairasole police station which was  

registered as Khairasole P.S. Case No.10 dated 26.4.1984 at 7.25  

P.M.  There is nothing to show that the FIR was anti dated, anti  

timed or fabricated.  Merely because the FIR was placed before the  

learned Magistrate on 30.4.1984, three days after registration of

Page 10

10

FIR, it cannot be said that the FIR was anti timed, anti dated and  

fabricated.  In fact, no question was put to the Investigating Officer  

as to the cause of delay in sending FIR to the Magistrate.

12. This Court in  State of Jammu and Kashmir v.  S. Mohan  

Singh and Another (2006) 9 SCC 272 held that the mere delay in  

sending the First Information Report to a Magistrate cannot be a  

ground to throw out prosecution case if the evidence adduced is  

otherwise found credible and trustworthy.  We are of the view that  

the High Court has rightly held that there is no reason to hold that  

the FIR was a fabricated document or anti dated or anti timed.

13. We are also not impressed by the argument of Ms. Rupali S  

Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that not much  

reliance could be placed on the evidence of eye-witnesses as most  

of them are relatives of Amrita Dome and not a single independent  

witness was examined by the prosecution.  In our view, merely  

because a witness is a relative of the deceased is not a reason for  

discarding his  evidence.   Many a  time,  strangers will  not  come  

forward  depose  as  witnesses,  even  if  they  have  witnessed  the

Page 11

11

crime.  Further, possibility of influencing such witnesses is also not  

uncommon.  Evidence of relatives can be acted upon if the court  

finds  that  the  evidence  of  such  a  witness  is  reliable  and  

trustworthy.   In  this  connection reference may be made to the  

Judgments of this Court in  Seeman @ Veeranam v.  State by  

Inspector of Police (2005) 11 SCC 142, Alamgir v. State (NCT,  

Delhi) (2003) 1 SCC 21,  Dalbir Kaur and Others v.  State of  

Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158,  State of U.P. v.  Jodha Singh and  

Others (1989) 3 SCC 465, Labh Singh and Others v. State of  

Punjab (1976) 1 SCC 181,  Visveswaran v.  State represented  

by SDM (2003) 6 SCC 73.

14. PW2, Monohar @ Manu Mondal, it may be noted, was not a  

relative  of  Amrita  Dome.   A  close  scrutiny  of  the  evidence  

rendered by the eye-witnesses, some of which are relative of the  

deceased,  clearly  establishes  the  involvement  of  the  accused.  

Further, in the cross examination of the eye witnesses, we have  

not noticed any serious contradiction, omission, infirmity, defect or  

lacuna which can make their evidence unbelievable and to make  

them  untrustworthy  witnesses.   Further,  the  evidence  of  eye-

Page 12

12

witnesses have been fully corroborated by the evidence of PW 12,  

the autopsy surgeon relating to the nature of injuries and places of  

injuries on the person of the deceased.  We notice that, earlier, the  

appeal was filed by Guiram Mondal along with Kisto Gorain and  

Madhusudan Mondal.  Appeal was initially dismissed on 17.9.2007  

since they had not complied with the orders of this Court dated  

19.4.2007  for  surrendering.   Later,  the  appellant  herein  was  

arrested and his case was restored on 28.11.2008 by this Court.

15. Considering the totality of the evidence and circumstances of  

the  case,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  High  Court  has  rightly  

reversed the judgment of the trial court after finding the appellant  

guilty  under  Section  302  read  with  Section  148  of  IPC  for  the  

murder  of  Amrita  Dome  and  awarded  the  sentence  of  life  

imprisonment.  We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the  

judgment of the High Court.  The appeal lacks merit and the same  

is dismissed.  

         ……………………………..J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

Page 13

13

……………………………..J. (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, April 26, 2013