Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dilu Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal on 8 December, 2015
Bench: Chief Justice, A.K. Sikri, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7901-7903/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/06/2014
in CRA No. 297/2006,05/06/2014 in CRA No. 300/2006,05/06/2014 in
CRA No. 210/2006 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta)
DILU GHOSH AND ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 8622/2014
(With appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and Interim Relief and
Office Report)
SLP(Crl) No. 497/2015
(With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report)
SLP(Crl) No. 8690/2015
(With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and
Office Report)
Date : 08/12/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Hiren Dasan, Adv.
Mr. Chand Qureshi, Adv.
Mrs Sarla Chandra,Adv.
Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Mangaljit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mrs. D.B. Mukherjee, Adv.
Signature Not Verified Mr. R.P. Goyal, Adv.
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2016.01.06
16:33:38 IST
Reason:
Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, Adv.
Ms. Narmada, Adv.
Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.
2
Mr. Parijat Sinha,Adv.
Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The criminal appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(ASHOK RAJ SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) Court Master Court Master (Signed Order is placed in the file) 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1649-1651 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.7901-7903 of 2014) DILU GHOSH AND ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1652 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.8622 of 2014) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1653 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.497 of 2015) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1654 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.8690 of 2015) O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
As many as 12 accused persons were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court convicted 11 out of those tried for murder and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Accused No.6-Swarup @ Badan Ghosh was, however, acquitted of the charges framed against him. Aggrieved, the convicts preferred C.R.As. No.210 of 2006, 297 of 2006 and 300 of 2006 before the High Court to challenge their conviction and the sentence awarded to them. The High Court has dismissed the said appeals and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The present appeals assail the correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court.
4
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length who have taken us through the orders passed by the courts below. It is in our opinion unnecessary to set out the factual matrix in which the case came to be registered and the appellants tried and convicted. We say so because these appeals must in our opinion succeed on a short point that was urged by Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of some of the appellants. Mr. Mukherjee argued that the High Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced at the trial and the order passed by it falls short of the requirements of a proper adjudication of the questions that fell for determination. In particular, it was submitted that the High Court has neither critically appreciated the evidence adduced on behalf the prosecution nor has it considered the points that were argued at the Bar on behalf of the appellants leave alone satisfactorily dealt with the same while dismissing the appeals.
There is considerable merit in the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee. We say so because a plain reading of the order passed by the High Court shows that the High Court has not made any effort to appraise the evidence of the witnesses examined at the trial and in one paragraph concluded that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. The High Court has observed:-
5
“We have carefully considered the evidence adduced in support of the prosecution. We are of the considered opinion that the eye witnesses have established the prosecution case beyond any doubt. The allegations of political rivalry suggested by the defence was not proved.” It is difficult for us to appreciate how the High Court could have summarily disposed of the appeals in the manner it has actually done. The least that the High Court was expected to do was to carefully scrutinize the evidence and deal with the submissions made at the Bar on behalf of the appellants and record reasons for the conclusions drawn by it. [See: Anil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 15 SCC 335, Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek Vs. State of Gujarat (2012) 11 SCC 312, Majjal Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 6 SCC 798 and Rama & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 571]. Inasmuch as the High Court has failed to keep the above pronouncements in view it is difficult for us to sustain the order passed by the High Court. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court with a request that it may hear and dispose of all the appeals afresh in accordance with law.
We may, at this stage, point out that except one, we have by our order dated 05.05.2015 enlarged the remaining five appellants, namely, Dilu Ghosh, Chandu Ghosh, Sanyashi 6 Ghosh, Hola Ghosh and Kapil Ghosh on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in terms of the said order. We are informed by learned counsel for the said appellants that the appellants have furnished the requisite bail bonds in terms of the said order and that they have been enlarged from the custody.
Since the matter is fairly old we hope and trust that the High Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeals afresh expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of one year from the date the records are received back by it.
..........................CJI.
(T.S. THAKUR) ...........................J. (A.K. SIKRI) ...........................J. (R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi, 8th December, 2015.