Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 09-03-2017 in case of petitioner name Bishu Sarkar & Ors. vs State of West Bengal
| |

Supreme Court Acquits Three in Murder Case Due to Lack of Conclusive Evidence

Updated on

The case of Bishu Sarkar & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal is a significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India concerning the burden of proof and criminal liability in group assaults. The ruling highlights the necessity of proving intent and individual responsibility in murder cases where multiple accused are involved.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around the alleged murder of Raju Bose on March 27, 1995. The prosecution claimed that six individuals—Tarit Kundu, Bishu Sarkar, Sahadeb Sarkar, Sasthi Sarkar, Paresh Sarkar, and Sukumar Ghosh—were involved in the fatal assault on the deceased.

Key events in the case:

  • On the day of the incident, a group of six accused allegedly attacked Raju Bose near National Highway-34.
  • Eyewitnesses claimed that Tarit Kundu inflicted a deadly stab wound on the victim’s back using a ‘bhojali’ (a sharp weapon).
  • The Trial Court convicted all six accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
  • The Calcutta High Court acquitted Paresh Sarkar and Sukumar Ghosh but upheld the conviction of the remaining four accused.
  • Accused Tarit Kundu’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2006.
  • The present appeal was filed by Bishu Sarkar, Sahadeb Sarkar, and Sasthi Sarkar, challenging their conviction.

Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

  • Did the prosecution establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Did the accused play an active role in the fatal assault?
  • Was there sufficient evidence to prove common intent under Section 34 IPC?

Arguments by the Appellants (Bishu Sarkar & Others)

The appellants contended:

  • They were merely present at the scene but did not participate in the murder.
  • The prosecution failed to prove that they held the victim to facilitate the attack.
  • The primary assailant, Tarit Kundu, had already been convicted, and there was no direct evidence linking them to the stabbing.
  • The conviction under Section 34 IPC (common intent) was based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of West Bengal)

The State contended:

  • The appellants were actively involved in the assault.
  • Witness testimonies confirmed that they caught hold of the victim while Tarit Kundu stabbed him.
  • They shared a common intention to kill the victim, making them equally liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the statements of prosecution witnesses PW2, PW3, and PW5:

  • PW2 and PW5 claimed the appellants held the victim during the attack.
  • PW3 did not confirm this assertion, leading to inconsistencies.
  • Medical evidence established that the fatal wound was inflicted from behind, corroborating that only one person wielded the weapon.

The Court stated:

“The allegations coming from all the witnesses are consistent that none of the present appellants had dealt any blow by any weapon and all that they did was to participate in the scuffle.”

Regarding common intention under Section 34 IPC, the Court emphasized:

“It is true that PWs 2 and 5 assert that the present appellants had caught hold of Raju Bose. But it is not clear from the record whether such act was so intended to enable accused No.1 to deal the fatal blow.”

Final Judgment

On March 9, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled:

  • The appeal by Bishu Sarkar, Sahadeb Sarkar, and Sasthi Sarkar was allowed.
  • Their conviction was set aside due to lack of conclusive evidence.
  • They were ordered to be released immediately, unless required in another case.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This ruling establishes crucial principles:

  • Presumption of Innocence: If reasonable doubt exists, the benefit must be given to the accused.
  • Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove individual roles beyond doubt in cases of group assaults.
  • Role of Circumstantial Evidence: Convictions under Section 34 IPC must be supported by clear evidence of common intent.
  • Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must differentiate between presence at a crime scene and active participation.

Impact on Future Criminal Cases

This judgment sets an important precedent:

  • Prosecutors must establish common intention clearly in group crimes.
  • Circumstantial evidence must lead to a singular inference of guilt.
  • Judges will carefully analyze inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bishu Sarkar & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal reinforces the principle that criminal liability must be established through clear and convincing evidence. The ruling ensures that individuals are not wrongfully convicted based on suspicion or weak circumstantial evidence.

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

Download Judgment: Bishu Sarkar & Ors. vs State of West Bengal Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-03-2017.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 Evidence Law
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2017
See all petitions in 2017 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