1922 (10) TMI 5 - HC - Indian Laws

Guilty of Culpable Homicide: Conviction Upheld Despite Errors, Sentencing to Life Transportation for Provocation-Induced Crime.

Emperor Versus Satyendra Kumar Dutt Chowdhury

Emperor Versus Satyendra Kumar Dutt Chowdhury - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the jury's verdict.2. Evaluation of witness credibility and admissibility of their testimonies.3. Determination of whether the accused committed the crime.4. Classification of the offense under the Indian Penal Code.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Jury's Verdict:The accused was tried for murder, and the jury unanimously found him not guilty of murder and, by a majority, not guilty of culpable homicide. The trial judge disagreed with the jury's verdict and referred the case to the High Court under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Evaluation of Witness Credibility and Admissibility of Their Testimonies:The case involved complex witness testimonies. The prosecution's narrative included a sudden attack by the accused, while some witnesses in the Magistrate's Court described a violent quarrel preceding the incident. Key witnesses were cross-examined, and some were declared hostile or treated as Court witnesses. The evidence of Padma Lochan, who was cross-examined by the prosecution, was excluded entirely based on the principle that if a witness is cross-examined by the party calling him, his entire testimony must be rejected. Similarly, the testimonies of so-called Court witnesses and the Sub-Inspector were also excluded due to procedural irregularities in their examination.3. Determination of Whether the Accused Committed the Crime:The remaining evidence included the dying declaration of the deceased, Natabar, and the testimonies of Amar Kinkar and Mahendra. The dying declaration, despite criticisms about its recording, was accepted as it was made in the presence of multiple witnesses without any protest. Amar Kinkar's testimony was considered reliable despite the Public Prosecutor's cross-examination, which was deemed a procedural error. Mahendra's testimony, despite some inconsistencies, was also accepted as reliable. The court concluded that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, Satyendra, was the assailant.4. Classification of the Offense under the Indian Penal Code:Based on the evidence, the court found that the offense committed by the accused fell within the first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to provocation. Consequently, the accused was found guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life.Conclusion:The High Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence and witness testimonies, concluded that the accused, Satyendra, was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court recognized the procedural difficulties and errors in the Sessions Court but ultimately upheld the conviction based on the reliable evidence presented.