Supreme Court affirms murder conviction & death sentence for appellants in Indian Penal Code case.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Malchand Bhadani. Both appellants were sentenced to death, with the High Court confirming the death sentence. The Court found the circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the appellants at the crime scene, injuries on their persons, and bloodstains on their clothing, sufficient to prove their participation in the murder. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Admissibility and voluntariness of the confessional statement.
3. Compliance with Sections 337 and 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the tender of pardon.
4. Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for conviction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Malchand Bhadani. The Sessions Judge found that the murder had been committed in the furtherance of their common intention. Bipin Behari Sarkar was convicted under Section 302 IPC, and Bishnu Charan Saha under Section 302/34 IPC. Both were sentenced to death. The High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence.

2. Admissibility and voluntariness of the confessional statement:
The High Court did not rely upon the confessional statement made by Bishnu Charan Saha to a Magistrate, as it was not considered a voluntary statement. The court focused on circumstantial evidence to uphold the conviction.

3. Compliance with Sections 337 and 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the tender of pardon:
The defense argued that the trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as Bishnu Charan Saha was tendered a pardon under Section 337 but was not tried separately. The court clarified that for Section 339 to apply, the pardon must be accepted and the person must be examined as a witness. In this case, Bishnu Charan Saha did not accept the pardon, and hence, the provisions of Section 339 did not apply. The court found no foundation for the submission that the trial was vitiated.

4. Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for conviction:
The High Court relied on the following circumstantial evidence to uphold the conviction:
- The appellants were local men who had the means and opportunity to know the state of things at Malchand's shop.
- Association of the appellants and Sanatan Das immediately prior to the murder.
- Movements of the appellants towards Malchand's shop.
- Presence of the appellants in Malchand's shop shortly before the murder.
- Bipin Behari Sarkar hurrying away from Malchand's shop, followed by Bishnu Charan Saha.
- Injuries on the palms or fingers of the appellants found at the time of their arrest.
- Presence of human bloodstains on Bishnu Charan Saha's shirt and bloodstains on Bipin Behari Sarkar's wrapper.
- Cash memoes with the signatures of Bishnu Charan Saha.
- The nature of the injuries on Malchand indicated that he was overpowered by someone first and then another person pressed the weapon against his neck.

The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the participation of the appellants in the murder of Malchand. The evidence against Bishnu Charan Saha included his presence at the crime scene, injuries on his person, and bloodstains on his shirt. For Bipin Behari Sarkar, the evidence included his movements towards and away from the crime scene, injuries on his person, and bloodstains on his wrapper. The court found no reasonable doubt about the guilt of both appellants.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed the death sentence. The appeals were dismissed.

---