Basudev Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 1996
Petitioner: Basudev Mandal
Respondent: State of West Bengal
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 1996
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 31, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – High Court also confirming the conviction and sentence and dismissing appeal. Held on further appeal that there was no reason to interfere with conviction and sentence. However, appellant having already undergone more than 14 years jail sentence, if he was found to have been in jail for some time during pre-conviction period, authorities could decide if such period could be considered for release of appellant.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Appellant in this case was convicted under Section 302 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 26.9.1986. He is alleged to have murdered his mother-in-law around 7.30 a.m. on 13.7.1979. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
2. The case rested on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the High Court referred to various circumstances and concluded that the circumstances have formed themselves into a completed chain. The courts relied on the testimony of PWs 2,3 and 5 as testifying to the important circumstances.
3. We do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. We notice also that appellant would have been in jail for more than 14 years by now. If he was in jail for at least sometime during the pre-conviction period, it is for the authorities now to decide whether the time thus spent by the appellant in jail can be considered for his release.
4. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.
1. Appellant in this case was convicted under Section 302 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 26.9.1986. He is alleged to have murdered his mother-in-law around 7.30 a.m. on 13.7.1979. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
2. The case rested on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the High Court referred to various circumstances and concluded that the circumstances have formed themselves into a completed chain. The courts relied on the testimony of PWs 2,3 and 5 as testifying to the important circumstances.
3. We do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. We notice also that appellant would have been in jail for more than 14 years by now. If he was in jail for at least sometime during the pre-conviction period, it is for the authorities now to decide whether the time thus spent by the appellant in jail can be considered for his release.
4. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.
