Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.1290     OF     2007   

LALKU MIAN AND ORS                    APPELLANTS

                VERSUS

CHIEF SECRETARY, M.H.A., GOVT.OF  WEST BENGAL          RESPONDENT

O     R     D     E     R   

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order  

passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal  

Appeal No.229 of 2002 dated 24.01.2006, the  

appellant, who are four in number, are before us in  

this appeal.  By the impugned judgment and order, the  

High Court has confirmed the judgment and order  

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd  

Court, Birbhumi, West Bengal in Sessions Case No.47  

of 1999, dated 11.06.2002.

2. This is a case of the circumstantial evidence  

being taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the  

High Court for convicting the appellants herein for  

1

Page 2

offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of  

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”  for shor).  The  

High Court, in its well considered order, has noted  

the following aspects to bring home the point that  

the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable  

doubt that the appellants are guilty of the offences  

alleged against them.  The High Court has noted  

(a)that the appellants were last seen in the company  

of the deceased; (b)that the father of the deceased,  

namely, P.W.1 and other witnesses, namely P.W.s 2, 4,  

5 and 6 had heard the cries of the deceased and  

endeavored to search for him; (c)that immediately  

after the commission of offence the appellants went  

missing and could not be traced; and (d) the factum  

of recovery of the weapon that was used for  

committing the offence.

3. After considering the aforesaid aspects of the  

matter, the High Court has come to the conclusion  

that the chain of circumstances is complete and,  

therefore, the Trial Court was justified in  

convicting and sentencing the accused persons for the  

offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of  

2

Page 3

the IPC.

4. Smt.Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel  

appearing as amicus for appellant no.1 and Shri  

Pranesh, learned counsel for appellant nos. 2 to 4  

have addressed their arguments in detail.  They have  

also taken us through the entire evidence on record  

and the judgments of both the Courts.  Shri Anip  

Sachthey, learned counsel for the State, in our  

opinion, ably justifies the impugned judgment and  

order.

5. Having carefully perused the judgments and  

order passed by the Trial Court as well as by the  

High Court, we are of the considered opinion that  

both the Courts have not committed any error either  

on facts or on the questions of law. Therefore, no  

interference with the said judgment and order is  

called for. Accordingly, while confirming the orders  

passed by the Courts below, we dismiss the appeal.

6. We place on record our deep appreciation in  

the able assistance rendered by Ms.Vibha Datta  

3

Page 4

Makhija, learned counsel, who was requested   by  us  

to assist us as amicus   for appellant no.1.  She is  

entitled for the professional fee in a sum of  

Rs.7,000/-.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 25, 2012  

4