High CourtDivision Bench2005-09-07Appeal dismissed.

ANANTLAL GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2004

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: H. K. Sema
Tarun Chatterjee
Judgment Date: 2005-09-07
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anantlal Ghosh

Respondents

State of West Bengal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. Ramasubramanian

Counsels for Respondents

• Tara Chandra Sharina

Case Synopsis & Summary

ANANTLAL GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL concerns the conviction of Anantlal Ghosh under sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC for the murder of Lilabati. There was no eye witness to the incident; the conviction rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the Calcutta High Court accepted the prosecution case on the basis of evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3, with corroboration from PW4. The circumstances relied upon included that the deceased bore injuries as described in the FIR; the body was hurriedly cremated before the arrival of police; PW2 testified to threats against witnesses to leave the place; PW2 and PW3 reportedly saw a rope at the scene; and there was a claim that the appellant and the deceased had spent the previous night together. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal principle that circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction only when the chain of circumstances is complete and incapable of any other hypothesis than guilt, and not merely consistent with guilt but inconsistent with innocence beyond reasonable doubt. After considering the materials cumulatively, the Court found that the chain of circumstances pointed to the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, upheld the conviction, and dismissed the appeal. The result is life imprisonment under 302 IPC and related sections.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 201 IPCSection 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of any other hypothesis except guilt; not merely consistent with guilt but inconsistent with innocence.
The chain of circumstances must point to guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that there is no eye-witness to the incident and that the conviction rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. He argues that the chain of circumstances is not complete and could be explained by alternate hypotheses consistent with innocence. Specifically, the evidence that the deceased bore injuries, that the body was hurriedly cremated before the police arrived, and that witnesses were threatened to leave the place do not, in isolation or cumulatively, exclude reasonable possibilities of other causes or the involvement of other persons. The appellant submits that the High Court’s re-appreciation should have confronted any gaps or inconsistencies in the sequence of events and should not have upheld the conviction on the basis of several incriminating strands without a watertight, closed chain. He argues that the standard of proof for circumstantial evidence requires that the entire chain be incapable of any reasonable alternative explanation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the circumstantial evidence, viewed cumulatively, establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The injuries observed on Lilabati, corroborated by the FIR and the testimonies of PW1, PW3, and PW4, together with the conduct of hastily cremating the body and not informing police promptly, and the testimony of PW2 regarding the rope and the altercation between the appellant and Lilabati, create a consistent chain of circumstances. The witnesses' statements were found credible by the trial court and the High Court on re-appreciation, and, taken together, satisfy the standard that the chain of circumstances must be complete and point to guilt rather than innocence. The Court reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence must not only be consistent with guilt but must be inconsistent with innocence, and, on this basis, held that the prosecution has established the chain beyond all reasonable doubt. The appeal has no merit and the conviction is maintained.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ANANTLAL GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## ANANTLAL GHOSH v. # STATE OF WEST BENGAL ## SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 [H.K. SEMA AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] _Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 201rlw34-Murder-Prosecution for-Conviction by Courts below on the basis of Circumstantial evidence and evidence of prosecution witnesses-On appeal, held: Conviction justified as_ C _circumstances of the case consistently point to the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence-Chain of circumstances are complete._ ## _Criminal Trial-_ _Circumstantial Evidence-Appreciation of-Held: Such evidence in order_ D _to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of any other hypothesis other than guilt of the accused._ Appellant-acc1Jsed was convicted by Courts below u/s 302/210/34 IPC for having caused death of a person. The conviction was based or circumstantial evidence and on the basis of evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. E The circumstances noticed were that the deceased had spent a night with the appellant previous to the date of incident, the dead body was hurriedly cremated before arrival of police; the injuries on the person of deceased were corroborated as mentioned in FIR and as stated by PWl and corroborated by PWs 3 and 4 and that the witnesses were threatened to leave the place. Hence the present appeal. F ## Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only G be consistent with. the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (114-G) 2. The testimony of PWs. 2, 3 and 4 alongwith other incriminating H 113 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A materials relied upon by the prosecution taken cumulatively would consistently point to the guilt of the accused and inconsistence with his innocence. The prosecution has been able to establish the chain of · circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt consistently pointing out to the guilt of the accused. [115-H; 116-A) B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.2003 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl.A. No. 151 of 1993. C V. Ramasubramanian for the Appellant. Tara Chandra Sharina for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D SEMA, J. The appellant alongwith 7 accused were put to trial under Sections 302 IPC and 201 read with 34 IPC. Six accused were acquitted by the trial court. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 IPC and 20 I read with 34 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for life under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201/34 IPC and sentenced to R.I. E for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default further R.I. for six months'. The other accused was also convicted under Section 20 I read with 34 IPC and was sentenced to four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default further three months' R.I. It appears that he has already undergone the sentence and conviction recorded against him. This appeal is filed by the accused Anantalal Ghosh who was convicted F under Section 302/201134 JPC by special leave. Admittedl'y, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. Both the trial court and the High Court recorded the conviction against the appellant on the basis of the evidence G of PW.I, PW.2 and PW.3. It is now established principle of law that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. H The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence found following II 5 ANANTLAL GHOSH _v._ STA TE OF WEST BENGAL [SEMA,J.] A circumstances well established against the appellant : I. That it was the fact that the deceased Lilabati bore marks of certain injuries which has been stated in the evidence of PW.I and mentioned in FIR (Ext.I) corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4. 2. That the evidence of Pws .2, 3 and 4 with regard to the fact that they B were threatened to leave the place and the body of Lilabati was hurriedly taken for cremation. 3. That the fact that no information was given to the police and the police could not see the dead body. c 4. That PW.8 was sent by the mother of the appellant to inform PW.I and his parents that Lilabati was attacked by diarrhea and the body was kept till the time of their arrival does not establish that the Lilabati died of diarrhea. _5._ That PW.2 in his evidence stated that he learnt from the appellant that there was an altercation between the appellant and Lilabati and a rope D on her waist was found below a Krishnachura tree. This testimony of PW.2 could not be shaken in the cross-examination. > 6. That the statement of PW.2 has been well. corroborated by the statements of Pws.3 and 4. E 7. That the appellant and the deceased Lilabati spent a night together previous to the date of incident and seizure of the rope under the Seizure List (Ext.2). 8. It is well within the knowledge of the appellant and who only could explain the circumstances leading to the cause of death of Lilabati. F 9. Last but not the least, the conduct of the appellant in cremating the dead body of the deceased hurriedly before the arrival of the police, when relatives went to call .the police after noticing the injury marks on the body of the deceased. G All these circumstances appearing against the appellant remain unimpeached. In our view, the testimony of Pws.2, 3 and 4 alongwith other incriminating materials relied upon by the prosecution taken cumulatively H 116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.. A would consistently point to the guilt of the accused and inconsistence with his innocence. In our view, the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstanc~s beyond all reasonable doubt consistently pointing out to the guilt of the accused. In the reasons aforestated, we find no merit in this appeal and the same B is accordingly dismissed. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.