SUBHASISH MONDAL @ BIJOYversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

                   [2013] 12 S.C.R. 435


             SUBHASISH MONDAL @ BIJOY                          A
                             v.
                STATE OF WEST BENGAL
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1391 of 2008)
                     NOVEMBER 21,
                                                               B
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
             V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]

    PENAL CODE, 1860:
                                                               c
    s.302 -Double murder -- Accused charged with murder
of his elder brother and mother - Circumstantial evidence -
Conviction by courts below - Held: The guilt of accused has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt - The recoveries
made from the place of incident, the injuries on the person 0
of accused, the evidence of witnesses that accused was seen
loitering around after the incident, all point towards the guilt
of the accused - Besides, accused held a strong grudge
against his mother and elder brother as his mother had given
the name of his elder brother for employment on E
compassionate ground on the death of his father - The motive
of vengeance is established and in cases in which only
circumstantial evidence is available, motive assumes a great
importance - Further, accused has simply pleaded innocence
- No other explanation has been offered by him in spite of the
incriminating circumstances that pointed to his guilt - This is F
a suspicious facet of this case - All these circumstances, which
form a reliable chain of events, proved the hypothesis that
accused is guilty of the gruesome murder of his elder brother
and mother - Conviction and sentence of accused-appellant
sustained - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Criminal Jaw G
- Motive.

    On the basis of a written report lodged by PW-1, an
FIR was registered to the effect that PW-1 heard screams
                           435                                 H
   436      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A coming from the next d~?or quarter and when he along
  with others went to the sa.~d quarter, he found dead body
  of its occupant,and his mott':ler seriously injured. She was
  taken to the hospital, but sht.' succumbed to her injuries.
  During the investigation, it tr;ilnspired that the deceased
B were the elder brother and the mother of the accused-
  appellant, who killed them as t,1is mother gave the name
  of his elder brother for employment on compassionate
  ground on the death of his t:ather. The trial court
  convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him
c to imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed the
  conviction and the sentence.

         Dismissing the appeal, the Cour1t

       HELD: 1.1 The guilt of the accused has been proved
D beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record is that
  someone entered and exited the quarter ,of the deceased
  through an exit hole of the bathroom and the door of the
  room in which the deceased were found, was closed
  from inside. The Investigating Officer (P.W 12) stated that
E he arrested the accused on his way to his sister's house
  (P.W 2) and that he found some scratch marks and
  injuries on his body which was later examined by the
  doctor ( P.W. 11), who opined that the injuries were
  caused due to scuffling with another person and could
F have been inflicted if the accused was an assailant and
  the victims tried to save themselves from his assault. P.W.
  8, the Medical Officer who examined the body of the elder
  brother of the accused stated in his evidence that the
  injuries may be caused by incriminating substance such
G as 'nora', which was recovered from the scene of the
  crime. The accused-appellant's motive of vengeance as
  he was angry at being denied his father's job led him
  murdering his elder brother and mother. The motive of
  vengeance is established and in cases in which only
  circumstantial evidence is available, motive assumes a
H
SUBHASISH MONDAL @ BIJOY v. STATE OF WEST 437
                BENGAL
great importance. This, along with the fact that the A
accused-appellant was seen loitering around after the
occurrence and the silver chain that he took from his
sister, P.W. 2, was found at the site of the murder all point
to the guilt of the accused. It is also on record that the
accused-appellant was addicted to wine and mixed with B
anti-social elements. Further, a railway ticket was found
by P.W.1, for the date of 31.8.2001 from Howrah which
presumably be!onged to the accused as he lived in
Howrah and the murder happened in Kharagpur. All these
circumstances which form a reliable chain of events c
proved the hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the
gruesome murder of his family - his elder brother and his
mother. [para 8-10 and 12] [442-D-F; 443-C-H; 444-A; 445-
D-F]
    Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2011 (6) SCR 330        D
=(2011) 6 sec 396; Wakkar v. State of U.P. (2011) 3 sec
306 - relied on.
     1.2 Further, the accused has simply pleaded
innocence. No explanation has been offered by the                E
accused in spite of the incriminating circumstances that
pointed to his guilt. This is a suspicious facet of this case,
the mere denial of guilt on the part of the accused. [para
12] [445-C-D]
   Harivardan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013) 7        F
sec 45, relied on.
     1.3 The conviction of the appellant-accused uls 302,
IPC and sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by the
trial court and upheld by the High Court is sustained.           G
[para 13]
                     Case Law Reference:
    2011 (6) SCR 330          relied on             para 10

     c2011 l 3 sec 306        relied on             para 10      H
    438      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 12 S.C.R.

A         (2013) 1 sec 45         relied on              para 11
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1391 of 2008.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2006 of the
B High Court at Calcutta in CRA No. 398 of 2003.

          Rutwik Panda for the Appellant.
          Shagun Matta, Anip Sachthey for the Respondent.

C         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the
  appellant- Subhashish Mondal @ Bijoy, against the final
  judgment and order dated 29.09.2006, passed by the High
D Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2003, whereby
  the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and
  upheld the verdict of the trial court convicting him under Section
  302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") on the charge of
  double murder of his brother and mother and sentencing him
E to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
  default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple
  imprisonment for three months. The present appeal is filed
  urging certain grounds and legal contentions, praying to set
  aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and
F to reverse the conviction and sentence passed by the courts
  below.

       2. The facts of the case are stated in brief. The appellant,
  Subhasis Mondal was charged with the murder of his elder
  brother, Debasis Monda! and his mother, Bithika Monda! at
G their house in Kharagpur town, based on the FIR filed by one
  Srinivas Rao who used to reside in the quarter beside the
  quarter of the victims. The trial court found him guilty for the
  double murder of his brother and mother and sentenced him
  to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC. Against
H the judgment and order of the trial court, the appellant filed an
SUBHASISH MONDAL @ BIJOY v. STATE OF WEST 439
       BENGAL [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
appeal before the High Court pleading innocence and lack of A
evidence and prayed for reversal of the conviction and
sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the
verdict of the trial court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and
order of the High Court, the appellant has filed the present
appeal.                                                         B
      3. The prosecution case giving birth to the sessions trial
was that the appellant, on the night of September 1, 2001, had
allegedly killed both his elder brother and his mother at their
railway quarter No.2 D/2, Old Settlement, Kharagpur Town and        C
this fact of the gruesome murder of both the victims came to
light when an FIR was lodged by one A. Srinivas. Rao who was
also a Railways Employee and who used to reside in the
quarter just beside the quarter of the victims. Mr. Srinivasa Rao
in his written complaint dated 1st September, 2001 alleged that
he heard screaming sounds coming from the next door quarter         D
and so he, along with his relatives and other neighbours went
to quarter No.2 D/2 and found the dead body of Debasis, the
brother of the appellant and his mother, Bithika in a precarious
condition with serious injuries on her person. Bithika was
subsequently taken to the hospital for treatment but she            E
succumbed to her injuries. On getting this information, the
police visited the place of occurrence and there, Mr. Rao
presented his written complaint about the murder without any
mention of the assailant as it was still unknown. On receipt of
the written complaint, the case was investigated into and the       F
police collected evidence from which it was reasonably felt that
the appellant committed the murder of his mother and elder
brother and thus, a charge sheet was submitted against the
 appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned Additional
 Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302, IPC against        G
 the appellant for murder of his mother and elder brother and
the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

     4. The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses which
included A. Srinivas Rao and some of the people of the locality,
                                                                    H .
    440      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 12 S.C.R.

A P.W 2 - Rupali Sen, the sister of the appellant and his
  deceased elder brother and daughter of his deceased mother,
  the doctor who conducted the Post Morterr examination, the
  doctor who examined the appellant soon aftEir his arrest by the
  Investigating Officer(l.O) and the 1.0 himself. The learned trial
B judge after considering the prosecution evidence, both oral and
  documentary, and after hearing the contentions of both the
  appellant and the State finally came to the conclusion that the
  appellant coming from Calcutta on 31st August. 2001 made his
  entry into the quarter of Debasis in the night of September 1,
C 2001 and finding his mother and brother clefenceless, killed
  them both to take revenge since Debasis got employment on
  compassionate ground on the death of his father and the
  appellant was deprived of an employment opportunity. The trial
  court reached this conclusion, mainly on the oral testimony of
  P.W.2 Rupali Sen, sister of the appeliart and on several
0
  circumstances which was gathered from both oral and
  documentary evidence of the prosecution. The trial court on
  appreciation of evidence on record held the appellant guilty of
  the murder of his brother and mother under Section 302 of the
  IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
E
       5. The appellant appealed against the jLidgment of the trial
  court in the High Court pleading innocence, and submitted that
  there were no eye witnesses to depose against the appellant
  and that he should be acquitted. The High Court held that there
F was sufficient material on record to lend support to the
  conclusion of the trial court that the appellant, feeling himself
  deprived of the job of his father held a deep grudge against
  his mother and elder brother and as he resided in Calcutta, he
  perhaps came on 31st August, 2001 and on 1st September,
G 2001, he entered into the room through t~e exit hole of the
  bathroom and thereafter again escaped through the said hole
  and this was corroborated by the oral testimony of P.W 2 -
  Rupali Sen, and also from the circumstance that no article was
  stolen, the door of the room was closed from inside and the
H appellant himself received some injuries due to scuffling and
         SUBHASISH MONDAL @BIJOY v. STATE OF WEST 441
                BENGAL [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
         finally, the silver chain of the appellant was recovered near the A
         body of the victims; Thus, all these circumstances together
         clearly established the fact beyond any reasonable doubt that
         it was the appellant who killed his elder brother and mother on ·
         the night of 1st September, 2001. The High Court held that the
         prosecution with the help of circumstantial evidence, established B
         a complete chain of events that there was no scope to hold
         otherwise than to lend support to the guilt of the appellant for
         the commission of the gruesome double murder.· The appeal
         was accordingly dismissed and the orders of conviction and
    '    sentence passed against the appellant under Section 302 of c
         the IPC    by the trial court were confirmed.
    f           .   '
    '
               .' 6. The ~ppellant hacffiled this appeal against the same and
           the matter has come before us. The amicus curiae appearing
         . on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Rutwik Panda has contended that
           the order of dismissal of appeal arid upholding the order of D
           conviction as against the appellant is manifestly unjust and
           illegal as it is against the evidence on record and that the
           judgment and.decision of both the courts below are based on ·
           surmises and conjectures and are liable to be set aside. It was
           further contended that the courts below ought to have E
          .considered that there were glaring discrepancies and
           contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
           making them unreliable and unbelievable and their evidence
           was insufficient and untrue. It was also contended that this Court
           should acquit the appellant on benefit of doubt and the question F
           of improbability of the involvement of the accused in the case
        · on hand and further, that the sentence imposed upon the                i
           appellant is too severe.                                             .lI
              7. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Anip
         Sachtey has argued that although there were no eye-witnesses
                                                                           G     I
         to prove the involvement of the appellant behind the gruesome
0
         double.murder of his. mother. and elder brother, the
         circumstances taken as a whole would present only one
         hypothesis pointing out the guilt of the appellant. He has also
                                                                           H
    442      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A contended that the door of the room where the victims were
  murdered was locked from inside and the murderer entered and
  exited through an exit hole of the bathroom, and it is clear that
  only a person having full knowledge of the quarter could have
  entered and exited that way. Further, not a single article was
B stolen and from the evidence of P.W.2, Rupali Sen, the sister
  of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant felt himself deprived
  of the job of his deceased father which went to his elder
  brother(the deceased) and so he held a long-standing grudge
  against both his mother and his elder brother. He contended
c that the appellant had the motive of vengeance in committing
  this gruesome double murder of his own mother and elder
  brother and the order of conviction and sentencing the appellant
  must be upheld and there is no ground to interfere with the
  order of conviction or sentence handed to the appellant.
D      8. We have heard the rival legal contentions and perused
  the evidence on record. We have to come to the conclusion that
  the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable
  doubt. The contention that the conviction is based entirely on
  circumstantial evidence with an incomplete chain of events is
E not tenable. We will examine the evidence cm record. The
  evidence before us is that someone entered and exited the
  quarter of the deceased through an exit hole of the bathroom
  and the door of the room in which the brother and mother of
  accused was found, was closed from inside. The investigation
F also revealed that a silver chain was found at the scene of the
  crime, which the P.W .2 stated later on in her deposition that it
  belonged to her, and the accused had taken that silver chain
  with locket of Goddess Kali from her prior to the occurrence.
  She identified the silver necklace lying on the floor by the side
G of the dead body of Debasis, her elder brother and also said
  that he put a locket of Shiva on the said chain later on. She
  further stated on record that her brother, the accused used to
  mix with antisocial elements and was addicted to wine and on
  account of this, their mother was not inclined to give the service
H of their deceased father to the accused but instead opined that
SUBHASISH MONDAL @ BIJOY v. STATE OF WEST 443
       BENGAL [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
the employment on compassionate ground be given to the elder         A
brother, Debasis and that if it is given to the accused, then he
will be spoiled. The complainant, P.W 1, A. Srinivasa Rao has
deposed stating that he found Debasis in a pool of blood and
his mother, Bithika in a pool of blood in the bathroom. He also
stated that he found one 'shil' (iron slab), one silver chain with   s
locket and one railway ticket, and four buttons.
       9. The P.W 12, the Investigating Officer, Mr. Mallick, the
S.I. of Police attached to Kharagpur Police Station deposed
that he found the dead body of Debasis, the elder brother of
the accused in a pool of blood and was informed that his injured     C
mother was sent to the hospital. He seized one silver chain with
lockets of Goddess Tara and God Shiva, and other articles like
'shil', 'nora', blood stained mat, ch appal, button etc under a
seizure list prepared and signed by him (marked as Exs. 2/2
and 3/1 ). He further stated that he arrested the accused at         D
Subhaspally on his way to his sister's house (P.W 2, Rupali
Sen) and that he found some scratch marks and injuries on his
body which was later examined by the doctor, P.W. 11, who
opined that the injuries were caused due to scuffling with another
person and could have been inflicted if the accused was an           E
assailant and the victims tried to save themselves from his
assault. Legature marks on the neck may be caused to the
assailant if the victim had dragged the assailant after pulling
the chain which was put on by him at his neck. P.W. 8, the
Medical Officer who examined the body of Debasis, the elder          F
brother of the accused stated in his evidence that the injuries
may be caused by incriminating substance such as 'nora', which
was recovered from the scene of the crime.
      10. From the evidence of the witnesses discussed above, G
it is apparent that the accused had a clear motive to have
committed the brutal murder of his elder brother and his mother
and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused. He held
a strong grudge against his mother and elder brother as his
mother had given the name of his brother for the job of his H
    444        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A deceased father instead of his name. The motive of vengeance
  is established and in cases in which only circumstantial
  evidence is available, motive assumes a great importance. In
  the case of Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi)1, this Court
  citing the case of Wakkar v. State of U.P. 2 held that in cases
B of circumstantial evidence, motive is ver/ important, unlike
  cases of direct evidence. In the case at hand, it is evident that
  the prosecution case that the motive of tho accused in killing
  his elder brother and mother was out of vengeance has to be
  accepted. The trial court has stated that it was crystal clear that
c there was a family feud between the accused and the deceased
  over the service in the railway workshop on the death of their
  father.
       11. The accused was arrested on the same day o{ the
  occurrence, when he was on his way to his sister's house.
D When charged with the offence under Section 302 of the IPC,
  the accused pleaded his innocence and made one solitary
  statement that everything is false. There was no attempt of
  explanation of circumstances or plea of alibi on the part of the
  accused. The counsel for the accused simply pleaded that the
E accused be acquitted on the principle of benefit of doubt and
  that there is no chain of circumstances that can lead to the
  hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the murder of his elder
  brother and mother. The judgment of this Court in the case of
  Harivardan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat3 speaks of this
F very aspect of a case wherein the accused has merely denied
  his guilt and failed to give any explanation under Section 313
  of the CrPC of the incriminating circumstances against him. The
  relevant portion is extracted below,
          "28.A'lother facet is required to be addressed to. Though
G         all the \ncriminating circumstances which point to the guilt
          of the accused has been put to him, yet he chose not to
    1.   (2011) 6 sec 396.
    2.   (2011) 3 sec 306.
H 3. (2013) 1 sec 45.
SUBHASISH MONDAL @ BIJOY v. STATE OF WEST 445
       BENGAL [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
    give any explanation under S.313 of the CrPC except            A
    choosing the mode of denial. It is well settled in law that
    when the attention of the accused is drawn to the said
    circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails
    to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer,
    the same can be counted as providing a missing link for        B
    building the chain of circumstances ... In the case at hand,
    though a number of circumstances were put to the
    accused, yet he has made a bald denial and did not offer
    any explanation whatsoever. Thus, it is also a circumstance
    that goes against him."                                        c
      12. In the present case too, the accused has simply entered
a plea of innocence. No other explanation has been offered by
the accused in spite of the incriminating circumstances that
pointed to his guilt. It is our view that this is a suspicious facet
of this case, the mere denial of guilt on the part of the accused. D
This, along with the fact that he was seen loitering around after
the occurrence and the silver chain that he took from his sister,
P.W. 2, was found at the site of the murder all point to the guilt
of the accused. His motive of vengeance as he was angry at
being denied his fathe~s job led to him murdering his elder E
brother and mother. It is also on record that he was addicted
to wine and mixed with anti-social elements. Further, a railway
ticket was found by the complainant, P.W.1, A. Srinivasa Rao
for the date of 31st August, 2001 from Howrah which
presumably belonged to the accused as he lived in Howrah and F
the murder happened in Kharagpur. All these circumstances
which form a reliable chain of events proved the hypothesis that
the accused is guilty of the gruesome murder of his family - his
elder brother and his mother.
     13. For the aforesaid reasons we sustain the conviction G
of the appellant-accused under Section 302 of the IPC and
sentencing him for life imprisonment as awarded by the trial
court and upheld by the High Court. We do not find any merit
in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
R.P.                                      Appeal dismissed. H