Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and S.K. Gangele, JJ. allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant who was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased and awarded life sentence. It was alleged by the PWs 2 and 3, the brother and mother of the deceased, that the appellant had a farsa with which the deceased was attacked and he, therefore, died on the spot. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was challenged in the instant appeal.

The High Court noted that the eye-witnesses had deposed that the appellant was armed with a farsa and had inflicted injuries upon the deceased. However, in the postmortem report, there were no signs of any such injury that could have been caused by a sharp weapon. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem also deposed that he did not notice any such injury. Relying on Mahavir Singh v. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220, the Court held that where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out the possibility of the ocular evidence being true, then such ocular evidence may be disbelieved. Holding thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside. The appeal was thus, allowed. [Shiv Prasad Kol v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 414, dated 05-07-2018]

High Courts

Calcutta High Court: Deciding the matter that whether or not the petitioner has been honourably acquitted in terms of Rule 13 (a) of the West Bengal Primary Education Rules, 2001 (Rules) , the Court, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in D.I.G Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 wherein it was held that where the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled against the accused and the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted”, held that there cannot be any manner of doubt that the petitioner has been “honourably acquitted” by a competent court of law and that on reinstatement he is entitled to the full pay to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended as per Rule 13 (a) of the West Bengal Primary Education Rules, 2001.

As regards the facts of the case on which the decision as to honourable acquittal of the petitioner was to be decided by the Court, the petitioner, a school teacher represented by Anjan Bhattacharya and Kamal Misra in the present case, had been arrested on charges of kidnapping a young girl who, in her statements before the Magistrate, had said that she had a love affair with petitioner and that the two of them had married each other at a temple. However, in her statement before the Sessions Judge, she said that she went to the house of the petitioner as she was his neighbour and that she had been tutored by the police to give the statement before the Magistrate and that no marriage had been solemnized between them. Rejecting the contention of the respondents that the girl was recovered from the house of the petitioner, hence, was kidnapped by him, the Sessions judge held that even though the girl gave contradictory statements, one thing was clear in both the statements that she was not kidnapped by the petitioner. Taking note of the above-mentioned facts of the case, the Court directed the respondents, appearing through Anami Sikdar and Mirza Kamruddin, to reinstate the petitioner and give him full pay in accordance with the Rules. Tathagata Parui v. State of West Bengal, W.P. 1328(W) of 2014, decided on  31.03.2014

To read the full judgment, refer to SCCOnLine