Page 1

REPORTABLE        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1391 of 2008

Subhasish Mondal @ Bijoy       ... Appellant

               VS.

State of West Bengal    ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

 This  appeal  is  filed  by  the  appellant–  

Subhashish  Mondal  @  Bijoy,  against  the  final  

judgment and order dated 29.09.2006, passed by the

Page 2

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 398  

of  2003,  whereby  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  

appeal of the appellant and upheld the verdict of  

the trial court convicting him under Section 302 of  

the  Indian  Penal  Code  (in  short  “IPC”)  on  the  

charge of double murder of his brother and mother  

and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to  

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment  

of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for  

three months. The present appeal is filed urging  

certain grounds and legal contentions, praying to  

set aside the impugned judgment and order of the  

High  Court  and  to  reverse  the  conviction  and  

sentence passed by the courts below.   

2. The facts of the case are stated in brief. The  

appellant,  Subhasis  Mondal  was  charged  with  the  

murder of his elder brother, Debasis Mondal and his  

mother, Bithika Mondal at their house in Kharagpur  

town, based on the FIR filed by one Srinivas Rao  

who  used  to  reside  in  the  quarter  beside  the  

quarter of the victims. The trial court found him  

- 2 -

Page 3

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

guilty for the double murder of his brother and  

mother and sentenced him to imprisonment for life  

under Section 302 of the IPC. Against the judgment  

and order of the trial court, the appellant filed  

an appeal before the High Court pleading innocence  

and lack of evidence and prayed for reversal of the  

conviction and sentence. The High Court dismissed  

the  appeal  and  upheld  the  verdict  of  the  trial  

court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of  

the High Court, the appellant has filed the present  

appeal.    

3.  The  prosecution  case  giving  birth  to  the  

sessions trial was that the appellant, on the night  

of September 1, 2001, had allegedly killed both his  

elder  brother  and  his  mother  at  their  railway  

quarter No.2 D/2, Old Settlement, Kharagpur Town  

and this fact of the gruesome murder of both the  

victims came to light when an FIR was lodged by one  

A. Srinivas Rao who was also a Railways Employee  

and who used to reside in the quarter just beside  

the quarter of the victims. Mr. Srinivasa Rao in  

- 3 -

Page 4

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

his  written  complaint  dated  1st September,  2001  

alleged that he heard screaming sounds coming from  

the next door quarter and so he, along with his  

relatives and other neighbours went to quarter No.2  

D/2 and found the dead body of Debasis, the brother  

of  the  appellant  and  his  mother,  Bithika  in  a  

precarious condition with serious injuries on her  

person.  Bithika  was  subsequently  taken  to  the  

hospital  for  treatment  but  she  succumbed  to  her  

injuries. On getting this information, the police  

visited the place of occurrence and there, Mr. Rao  

presented his written complaint about the murder  

without  any  mention  of  the  assailant  as  it  was  

still unknown. On receipt of the written complaint,  

the  case  was  investigated  into  and  the  police  

collected  evidence  from  which  it  was  reasonably  

felt that the appellant committed the murder of his  

mother and elder brother and thus, a charge sheet  

was submitted against the appellant under Section  

302  of  the  IPC.  The  learned  Additional  Sessions  

Judge framed charge under Section 302, IPC against  

the appellant for murder of his mother and elder  

- 4 -

Page 5

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

brother and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the  

charge and claimed trial.

4.  The  prosecution  examined  in  all  12  witnesses  

which  included  A.  Srinivas  Rao  and  some  of  the  

people of the locality, P.W 2 – Rupali Sen, the  

sister  of  the  appellant  and  his  deceased  elder  

brother and daughter of his deceased mother, the  

doctor who conducted the Post Mortem examination,  

the doctor who examined the appellant soon after  

his arrest by the Investigating Officer(I.O) and  

the  I.O  himself.  The  learned  trial  judge  after  

considering the prosecution evidence, both oral and  

documentary, and after hearing the contentions of  

both the appellant and the State finally came to  

the  conclusion  that  the  appellant  coming  from  

Calcutta on 31st August, 2001 made his entry into  

the quarter of Debasis in the night of September 1,  

2001  and  finding  his  mother  and  brother  

defenceless, killed them both to take revenge since  

Debasis got employment on compassionate ground on  

the  death  of  his  father  and  the  appellant  was  

- 5 -

Page 6

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

deprived of an employment opportunity. The trial  

court reached this conclusion, mainly on the oral  

testimony  of  P.W.2  Rupali  Sen,  sister  of  the  

appellant and on several circumstances which was  

gathered from both oral and documentary evidence of  

the prosecution. The trial court on appreciation of  

evidence on record held the appellant guilty of the  

murder of his brother and mother under Section 302  

of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.  

5.  The appellant appealed against the judgment of  

the  trial  court  in  the  High  Court  pleading  

innocence,  and  submitted  that  there  were  no  eye  

witnesses to depose against the appellant and that  

he should be acquitted. The High Court held that  

there  was  sufficient  material  on  record  to  lend  

support to the conclusion of the trial court that  

the appellant, feeling himself deprived of the job  

of his father held a deep grudge against his mother  

and elder brother and as he resided in Calcutta, he  

perhaps  came  on  31st August,  2001  and  on  1st  

September, 2001, he entered into the room through  

- 6 -

Page 7

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

the exit hole of the bathroom and thereafter again  

escaped  through  the  said  hole  and  this  was  

corroborated  by  the  oral  testimony  of  P.W  2  –  

Rupali Sen, and also from the circumstance that no  

article was stolen, the door of the room was closed  

from inside and the appellant himself received some  

injuries due to scuffling and finally, the silver  

chain of the appellant was recovered near the body  

of  the  victims.  Thus,  all  these  circumstances  

together clearly established the fact beyond any  

reasonable  doubt  that  it  was  the  appellant  who  

killed his elder brother and mother on the night of  

1st September, 2001. The High Court held that the  

prosecution  with  the  help  of  circumstantial  

evidence, established a complete chain of events  

that there was no scope to hold otherwise than to  

lend support to the guilt of the appellant for the  

commission  of  the  gruesome  double  murder.  The  

appeal was accordingly dismissed and the orders of  

conviction  and  sentence  passed  against  the  

appellant under Section 302 of the IPC by the trial  

court were confirmed.  

- 7 -

Page 8

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

6. The appellant had filed this appeal against the  

same and the matter has come before us. The amicus  

curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr.  

Rutwik  Panda  has  contended  that  the  order  of  

dismissal  of  appeal  and  upholding  the  order  of  

conviction as against the appellant is manifestly  

unjust and illegal as it is against the evidence on  

record and that the judgment and decision of both  

the  courts  below  are  based  on  surmises  and  

conjectures and are liable to be set aside. It was  

further contended that the courts below ought to  

have  considered  that  there  were  glaring  

discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of  

the  prosecution  witnesses  making  them  unreliable  

and  unbelievable  and  their  evidence  was  

insufficient and untrue. It was also contended that  

this Court should acquit the appellant on benefit  

of doubt and the question of improbability of the  

involvement of the accused in the case on hand and  

further,  that  the  sentence  imposed  upon  the  

appellant is too severe.  

- 8 -

Page 9

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

7. The learned counsel for the respondent-State,  

Mr.  Anip  Sachtey  has  argued  that  although  there  

were no eye-witnesses to prove the involvement of  

the appellant behind the gruesome double murder of  

his  mother  and  elder  brother,  the  circumstances  

taken as a whole would present only one hypothesis  

pointing out the guilt of the appellant. He has  

also contended that the door of the room where the  

victims were murdered was locked from inside and  

the  murderer  entered  and  exited  through  an  exit  

hole of the bathroom, and it is clear that only a  

person having full knowledge of the quarter could  

have entered and exited that way. Further, not a  

single article was stolen and from the evidence of  

P.W.2, Rupali Sen, the sister of the appellant, it  

is clear that the appellant felt himself deprived  

of the job of his deceased father which went to his  

elder brother(the deceased) and so he held a long-

standing  grudge  against  both  his  mother  and  his  

elder brother. He contended that the appellant had  

the motive of vengeance in committing this gruesome  

double murder of his own mother and elder brother  

- 9 -

Page 10

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

and  the  order  of  conviction  and  sentencing  the  

appellant must be upheld and there is no ground to  

interfere with the order of conviction or sentence  

handed to the appellant.  

8. We have heard the rival legal contentions and  

perused the evidence on record. We have to come to  

the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has  

been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The contention  

that  the  conviction  is  based  entirely  on  

circumstantial evidence with an incomplete chain of  

events is not tenable. We will examine the evidence  

on record. The evidence before us is that someone  

entered  and  exited  the  quarter  of  the  deceased  

through an exit hole of the bathroom and the door  

of the room in which the brother and mother of  

accused  was  found,  was  closed  from  inside.  The  

investigation also revealed that a silver chain was  

found at the scene of the crime, which the P.W.2  

stated later on in her deposition that it belonged  

to her, and the accused had taken that silver chain  

with locket of Goddess Kali from her prior to the  

- 10  -

Page 11

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

occurrence.  She  identified  the  silver  necklace  

lying on the floor by the side of the dead body of  

Debasis, her elder brother and also said that he  

put a locket of Shiva on the said chain later on.  

She further stated on record that her brother, the  

accused used to mix with antisocial elements and  

was addicted to wine and on account of this, their  

mother  was  not  inclined  to  give  the  service  of  

their deceased father to the accused but instead  

opined that the employment on compassionate ground  

be given to the elder brother, Debasis and that if  

it  is  given  to  the  accused,  then  he  will  be  

spoiled. The complainant, P.W 1, A. Srinivasa Rao  

has deposed stating that he found Debasis in a pool  

of blood and his mother, Bithika in a pool of blood  

in the bathroom. He also stated that he found one  

‘shil’ (iron slab), one silver chain with locket  

and one railway ticket, and four buttons.          

9.  The  P.W  12,  the  Investigating  Officer,  

Mr.  Mallick,  the  S.I.  of  Police  attached  to  

Kharagpur Police Station deposed that he found the  

- 11  -

Page 12

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

dead  body  of  Debasis,  the  elder  brother  of  the  

accused in a pool of blood and was informed that  

his injured mother was sent to the hospital. He  

seized  one  silver  chain  with  lockets  of  Goddess  

Tara and God Shiva, and other articles like ‘shil’,  

‘nora’,  blood  stained  mat,  chappal,  button  etc  

under a seizure list prepared and signed by him  

(marked as Exs. 2/2 and 3/1). He further stated  

that he arrested the accused at Subhaspally on his  

way to his sister’s house (P.W 2, Rupali Sen) and  

that he found some scratch marks and injuries on  

his body which was later examined by the doctor,  

P.W. 11, who opined that the injuries were caused  

due to scuffling with another person and could have  

been inflicted if the accused was an assailant and  

the  victims  tried  to  save  themselves  from  his  

assault. Legature marks on the neck may be caused  

to  the  assailant  if  the  victim  had  dragged  the  

assailant after pulling the chain which was put on  

by him at his neck. P.W. 8, the Medical Officer who  

examined the body of Debasis, the elder brother of  

the  accused  stated  in  his  evidence  that  the  

- 12  -

Page 13

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

injuries may be caused by incriminating substance  

such as ‘nora’, which was recovered from the scene  

of the crime.  

10. From the evidence of the witnesses discussed  

above, it is apparent that the accused had a clear  

motive to have committed the brutal murder of his  

elder brother and his mother and the circumstances  

point to the guilt of the accused. He held a strong  

grudge against his mother and elder brother as his  

mother had given the name of his brother for the  

job of his deceased father instead of his name.  

The motive of vengeance is established and in cases  

in which only circumstantial evidence is available,  

motive assumes a great importance. In the case of  

Bhagwan Dass  v. State (NCT of Delhi)1,  this Court  

citing the case of  Wakkar  v. State of U.P.2 held  

that in cases of circumstantial evidence, motive is  

very important, unlike cases of direct evidence. In  

the  case  at  hand,  it  is  evident  that  the  

prosecution case that the motive of the accused in  

1 (2011) 6 SCC 396 2 (2011) 3 SCC 306

- 13  -

Page 14

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

killing his elder brother and mother was out of  

vengeance has to be accepted. The trial court has  

stated that it was crystal clear that there was a  

family feud between the accused and the deceased  

over the service in the railway workshop on the  

death of their father.   

11. The accused was arrested on the same day of the  

occurrence, when he was on his way to his sister’s  

house. When charged with the offence under Section  

302 of the IPC, the accused pleaded his innocence  

and made one solitary statement that everything is  

false.  There  was  no  attempt  of  explanation  of  

circumstances or plea of alibi on the part of the  

accused. The counsel for the accused simply pleaded  

that the accused be acquitted on the principle of  

benefit of doubt and that there is no chain of  

circumstances that can lead to the hypothesis that  

the accused is guilty of the murder of his elder  

brother and mother. The judgment of this Court in  

the case of Harivardan Babubhai Patel v. State of  

Gujarat3 speaks  of  this  very  aspect  of  a  case  3 (2013) 7 SCC 45

- 14  -

Page 15

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

wherein the accused has merely denied his guilt and  

failed to give any explanation under Section 313 of  

the CrPC of the incriminating circumstances against  

him. The relevant portion is extracted below,

“28.Another  facet  is  required  to  be  addressed to. Though all the incriminating  circumstances which point to the guilt of  the accused has been put to him, yet he  chose  not to  give any  explanation under  S.313 of the CrPC except choosing the mode  of denial. It is well settled in law that  when the attention of the accused is drawn  to the said circumstances that inculpated  him in the crime and he fails to offer  appropriate explanation or gives a false  answer,  the  same  can  be  counted  as  providing a missing link for building the  chain of circumstances... In the case at  hand,  though  a  number  of  circumstances  were put to the accused, yet he has made a  bald  denial  and  did  not  offer  any  explanation whatsoever. Thus, it is also a  circumstance that goes against him.”

12. In the present case too, the accused has simply  

entered a plea of innocence. No other explanation  

has been offered by the accused in spite of the  

incriminating  circumstances  that  pointed  to  his  

guilt. It is our view that this is a suspicious  

facet of this case, the mere denial of guilt on the  

- 15  -

Page 16

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

part of the accused. This, along with the fact that  

he was seen loitering around after the occurrence  

and the silver chain that he took from his sister,  

P.W. 2, was found at the site of the murder all  

point to the guilt of the accused. His motive of  

vengeance  as  he  was  angry  at  being  denied  his  

father’s job led to him murdering his elder brother  

and  mother.  It  is  also  on  record  that  he  was  

addicted  to  wine  and  mixed  with  anti-social  

elements. Further, a railway ticket was found by  

the complainant, P.W.1, A. Srinivasa Rao for the  

date  of  31st August,  2001  from  Howrah  which  

presumably belonged to the accused as he lived in  

Howrah and the murder happened in Kharagpur. All  

these circumstances which form a reliable chain of  

events proved the hypothesis that the accused is  

guilty of the gruesome murder of his family - his  

elder brother and his mother.

13.  For  the  aforesaid  reasons  we  sustain  the  

conviction of the appellant-accused under Section  

302  of  the  IPC  and  sentencing  him  for  life  

- 16  -

Page 17

Crl. A.No.1391 of 2008

imprisonment  as  awarded  by  the  trial  court  and  

upheld by the High Court. We do not find any merit  

in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed.  

                     ………………………………………………………………………J.

                    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

                             ………………………………………

………………………………J.         [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, November 21, 2013  

- 17  -