Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Laltu Ghosh, convicted for the murder of Keshab Ghosh, and upheld the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The incident occurred on 30 April 1982, when a boundary dispute led to a quarrel between the deceased and Ananta Ghosh (since deceased). Ananta instigated his sons Laltu and Paltu, and friend Sakti, to assault the deceased. Laltu stabbed the deceased in the abdomen with a kirich, and Paltu stabbed him on the back with a bhojali. The deceased succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court convicted Laltu Ghosh, holding that Paltu was a juvenile and the other two accused had died. The Supreme Court examined the evidence of PW1 (son) and PW4 (wife), who were eyewitnesses, and found their testimony consistent, cogent, and reliable. The court rejected the argument that they were interested witnesses, clarifying that a related witness is not automatically interested; the test is whether the witness has a motive to falsely implicate. The dying declaration recorded by Dr. Roychowdhury was also found credible. The court held that minor discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution case. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of Evidence - Related Witnesses - The court held that a witness who is a close relative of the victim is not automatically an 'interested' witness; their testimony must be assessed for reliability, consistency, and cogency. The evidence of PW1 (son) and PW4 (wife) was found consistent and trustworthy, and minor discrepancies did not discredit the prosecution case (Paras 8-15). B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Admissibility - The dying declaration (Ext. 4) recorded by Dr. Roychowdhury (PW18) was treated as valid and relied upon by the High Court. The Supreme Court found no reason to discard it, as it corroborated the eyewitness accounts (Paras 3, 5, 9). C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The High Court applied the principle of common intention to convict the appellant, as the assault was instigated by the father and carried out by the sons with shared intent. The Supreme Court upheld this finding (Paras 2, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant based on the evidence of related witnesses and the dying declaration
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction of Laltu Ghosh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld
Law Points
- Related witness not equivalent to interested witness
- Evidence of close relative cannot be discarded solely on ground of relationship
- Minor discrepancies in evidence do not affect core prosecution case
- Dying declaration can be relied upon if found credible
