Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 19-02-2019 in case of petitioner name Laltu Ghosh vs State of West Bengal
| |

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Dying Declaration

The case of Laltu Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal revolves around a murder conviction based on a dying declaration and eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal and convicting the accused.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to April 30, 1982, when a dispute over a land boundary escalated into a violent confrontation. The accused, Laltu Ghosh, along with his brother Paltu Ghosh and father Ananta Ghosh, allegedly attacked their neighbor, Keshab, in front of his house.

According to the prosecution:

  • Ananta Ghosh called Keshab out of his house and started an argument.
  • Upon Ananta’s instigation, Laltu Ghosh punched Keshab and stabbed him in the abdomen.
  • As Keshab attempted to escape, Paltu Ghosh stabbed him in the back, causing him to collapse near a tea stall.
  • Keshab was taken to a health center where he gave a dying declaration before succumbing to his injuries en route to the hospital.

The police registered a case, and the charge sheet named four accused: Laltu Ghosh, Paltu Ghosh, Ananta Ghosh, and their associate Sakti Karmakar. However, the Trial Court acquitted all accused due to alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

High Court’s Decision

The State of West Bengal filed an appeal against the acquittal before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court:

  • Convicted Laltu Ghosh based on the dying declaration and eyewitness testimony.
  • Declared Paltu Ghosh a juvenile at the time of the offense.
  • Closed proceedings against Ananta Ghosh and Sakti Karmakar as they had passed away during the appeal.

Challenging this decision, Laltu Ghosh approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The counsel for Laltu Ghosh contended:

  • The Trial Court’s acquittal was based on a detailed appreciation of evidence, which the High Court wrongly overturned.
  • The prosecution’s eyewitnesses—Keshab’s wife and son—were related to the victim, making their testimonies unreliable.
  • The dying declaration should not have been relied upon as it contained inconsistencies.
  • The Trial Court had valid reasons for acquitting the accused, and the High Court erred in reversing the decision.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of West Bengal, represented by the prosecution, argued:

  • The dying declaration was recorded by a doctor at the health center, making it a reliable piece of evidence.
  • The testimonies of the victim’s wife and son were consistent and corroborated the prosecution’s case.
  • The High Court was justified in re-evaluating the evidence and convicting the accused.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence and legal precedents before making its ruling. The Court noted:

“The evidence of related witnesses cannot be disregarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether their testimonies are consistent and credible.”

The Court analyzed the dying declaration and found it reliable:

“The victim’s statement was recorded by a doctor and corroborated by medical evidence. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity.”

The Supreme Court also criticized the Trial Court for disregarding the dying declaration:

“It is a well-settled principle that if a dying declaration is found to be true and voluntary, it alone can form the basis for conviction.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Laltu Ghosh and ruled:

  • The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.
  • The dying declaration and eyewitness testimonies were sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • The appeal by Laltu Ghosh was dismissed.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that dying declarations, when recorded properly, hold significant evidentiary value. The ruling also clarifies that courts should not disregard testimonies of related witnesses merely because they are family members of the victim. By upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of ensuring justice even in long-pending cases.


Petitioner Name: Laltu Ghosh.
Respondent Name: State of West Bengal.
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 19-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Laltu Ghosh vs State of West Bengal Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts