Holding

The conviction under Section 302 IPC stands; the absence of forensic evidence or the weapon does not invalidate a conviction when credible eyewitness testimony establishes the act.

Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for stabbing the deceased, Alimat alias Aliul Zaman, on 29 September 1990 in Jindighi, Murshidabad. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses who saw the appellant stab the victim, while the defence argued that the FIR was lodged after a delay, no bloodstains were collected, and the murder weapon was not recovered. The trial court and the Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction based on the eyewitness accounts. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of forensic evidence or the weapon did not undermine the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, and the medical expert’s alternative explanation was not substantiated. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction and life sentence intact.

Issues considered

Whether a delay in lodging the First Information Report defeats the prosecution's case for murder.
Whether the failure to collect bloodstain evidence or recover the murder weapon warrants setting aside a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Whether reliance solely on eyewitness testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
Whether the medical expert's suggestion of an alternative cause of injury affects the guilt of the accused.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCeyewitness testimonyforensic evidenceFIR delayconviction upheldcriminal appeal

Judgment

TAMA @ TAMAL MAL A
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL

SEPTEMBER 11, 2007

IS.B. SINHA AND H.S. HEDI, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860:

Section 302-Murder caused by stabbing a knife on chest of victim- C
Conviction-Plea that in view offailure of 1.0. to collect blood stained earth.
and recover the weapon of murder, conviction was liable to be set aside-
Held, when testimonies of two eyewitnesses had been believed by trial court
as also by High Court, there is no reason to differ with their findings-The
fact whether blood stains collected from place of occurrence by l 0. had been
sent for chemical examination or not pales into insignificance-Similarly, D
whether knife was recovered or not is also not of much importance-
lnvestigation-Injirmities in-Effect of

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1228 of
2007.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.2006 of the High Court of
Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of2002.

Anil Kumar Karnwal (A.C.) and Altaf Hussain for the Appellant.

Tara Chandra Sharma and Kishan Datta for the Respondent. F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

ORDER

Leave granted. G
Sole appellant is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6.3.2006 passed by a Division
Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 191/2002 whereby
and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment
917 II
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A of conviction <ind sentence dated 1.2.2002 passed by the Additional District
)-
& Sessions Judge, Jangipur, Murshidabad, in Sessions Case No. 49/99/Sessions
Trial No. 3 of 2000, convicting the appellant for commission of offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, was dismissed.

B The occurrence took place at about 1.30 p.m. on 29th September, 1990
in a village known as Jindighi in the District ofMurshidabad. The case of the
prosecution is t~at the deceased Alimat alias Aliul Zaman, younger brother
of the first inforrnat Badiujjaman (PW-I), along with one Samir Seikh (PW-2)
had gone to the said village for purchasing paddy. He did not find any paddy
C and walked around with the appellant in that village. While returning home
along the westren side of the village when he reached near the house of one
Surath Dewan (FW-4), Surath Dewan began talking with him. One Samir Seikh
(PW-2) w.as also with the appellant at that time. When PW-2 Samir Seikh had
walked about 60 cubits away from the deceased, he met Giyasuddin who was
coming from the opposite direction. PW~2 stated that when he looked behind,
D found that although the appellant and the deceased were walking together,
the appellant suddenly became agitated and stabbed the deceased on his
chest with a knife.

On being informed of the said incident, the first inforrnat Badiujjaman
(PW-I) went to the said village. Indisputably the first information report was
E lodged at 0615 hours on 30th September, 1990.

The prosecution in support of its case, besides examining the first
informat Badiujjaman (PW-1), also examined Samir Seikh (PW-2) and Gias
Seikh (PW-3) who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence.

F As noticed hereinbefore, the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court
relied on the testimonies of the said eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 and
convicted the appellant for commission of an offence under Section 302 of
the IPC.

G Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this
appeal, would inter alia, submit that the learned Trial Judge and consequently
the High Court committed an error in passing the judgment of conviction and
sentence as; (i) the First Information Report was lodged after considerable
delay; (ii) the Investigating Officer could not collect any bloodstains from the
place of occurrence as on his own saying by the first informant (PW-I) that
H there was heavy torrential rains; (iii) the weapon of attack, namely, knife was
TAMA@TAMAL MAL v. STATE 919
not recovered. A
We have been taken through the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
as also the evidence of Dr. S.K. Chakrabarty (PW-9). The fact that the deceased
met a homicidal death is not in dispute. From the evidence of the Doctor (PW-
9), who conducted the post-mortem examination, it appears that following
injuries were found on the person of the deceased: B
(I) One punctured injury-(stab wound) on the right side of the chest
in its sixth intercostals space, cutting sixth rib 2 112 X chest cavity deep.

(2) One stab would on the left lateral side of the chest in its fifth
interco.stals space. Blood in chest cavity. c
PW-1, the informant was not an eye witness. He was informed about
the occurrence by PW-2. PW-2 in his evidence has categorically stated that
when they were going together, he walked ahead of the deceased and was
talking with one Giyasuddin who had been coming from opposite direction.
When he looked behind he found that the appellant had stabbed the deceased D
with a knife on his chest and he had been fleeing away. PW-3 in his deposition
substantially corroborated the statement of PW-2 stating that while he was
talking to Samir Seikh, Alimat (the deceased) was standing about 60 cubits
away from him near the house of Surat Dewan, the incident occurred and he
saw the appellant stabbing the deceased whether the appellant fled away.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the First
Information Report was lodged after some delay is not of much substance.
It has been stated by PW-I first informant in his deposition before the Court
that as there was torrential rains, he could not go to the police station that
day. We may also place on record that the police station is situate at a F,
distance of about 21 Kilometres from the place of occurrence.

We may furthermore notice that the veracity of the testimony of
PW-2 had not been questioned in the cross-examination. There has hardly
been any cross-examination of the said witnesses. Except making some stray
suggestions that the appellant did not stab the deceased, no other question G '
in regard to the veracity of his statement had been put. Nothing has been
elicited by the defence from the cross-examinations of PW-2.

When the testimonies of two eye witnesses had been believed by the
learned Trial Judge as also by the High Court and in view of the fact that we
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R

A did not see any reason to differ with the findings of the two Courts, in our
)
opinion, the fact whether the bloodstains collected from the place of occurrence
by the Investigating Officer had been sent to the Forensic Expert for chemical
examination or not, pales into insignificance. We are furthermore of the opinion
that whether the knife was recovered or not is also not of much importance.

B Our attention was drawn to the statement of Dr. Chakrabarty (PW-9) to
the fact that according to the said witness, the injury suffered by the deceased
could be caused if anybody falls an iron railing. Such a statement made by
PW-9 does not lead us anywhere. It was not the case of the defence that there
was any iron railing or the deceased had fallen on any iron railing. Even such
C a question was not put to PW-2 and PW-3 in the cross-examination.

For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no
merit in this appeals. It is dismissed accordingly.

RP. Appeal dismissed.

-.....