2004 (10) TMI 643 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction Overturned for Appellant 1; Appellant 2's Case Sent for Retrial Due to Improper Proceedings.

Mongat Ram Singh and Ors. Versus State of West Bengal

The HC set aside the conviction and sentence of appellant No. 1 due to insufficient evidence, ordering his immediate release. For appellant No. 2, the ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC.2. Evidence and circumstantial evidence.3. Motive behind the murder.4. Improper framing of questions under Section 313 CrPC.5. Prejudice and unfair trial.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC:The appeal was filed by two convicts against their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each, with an additional one-month imprisonment in case of default.2. Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence:The prosecution presented 18 witnesses and several documents. The trial court found the appellants guilty based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen together' theory, as there were no direct eyewitnesses.3. Motive behind the Murder:The prosecution alleged that appellant No. 2 (Baxis) had an illicit relationship with the landlord's daughter-in-law, which the deceased had reprimanded him for. This was presented as the motive for the murder. However, the defense argued that there was no clear motive, especially for appellant No. 1 (Mongat), who had informed the deceased about the illicit relationship.4. Improper Framing of Questions under Section 313 CrPC:The defense argued that the questions under Section 313 CrPC were improperly framed, leading to prejudice and an unfair trial. The trial judge asked broad, complex questions, which were not properly translated or recorded, making it difficult for the accused to understand and respond.5. Prejudice and Unfair Trial:The court found that the improper framing of questions under Section 313 CrPC resulted in a prejudiced and unfair trial, particularly for appellant No. 2. The trial judge failed to ask separate, clear questions about each material circumstance, and the translated versions of the questions were not recorded.Judgment:The court set aside the conviction and sentence of appellant No. 1 (Mongat), as there was no sufficient evidence against him. For appellant No. 2 (Baxis), the court remanded the case back to the Sessions Judge for retrial from the stage of framing questions under Section 313 CrPC, with proper translation and recording. The Sessions Judge was directed to conclude the proceedings within two months.Conclusion:The court acquitted appellant No. 1 and ordered his immediate release. The conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2 were set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial to ensure a fair trial.