CASE TITLE:
Monirul Molla Vs State of West Bengal
DATE OF ORDER:
6th April, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Justice Joymalya Bagchi & Hon’ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: Monirul Molla
RESPONDENT: State of West Bengal
SUBJECT
Death sentence by Trial Court in conviction of appellant for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Arms Act.
BRIEF FACTS
- On 11.11.2011, an FIR was registered against Monirul Molla and another under Arms Act.
- Subsequently, charges were framed against the appellants under Section 326/302/34 of IPC, and Section 25(1A) (1B) of the Arms Act.
- They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of innocence and false implication.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether trial courts cansentence the accused person with imprisonment for life without possibility of remission?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- Mr. Rahman, who was representing Monirul Molla, stated that P.W. 1 Sanjay Mondal's testimony was untrustworthy. His deposition in court is riddled with embellishments and inconsistencies.
- The learned counsel submitted that it's unclear how Sanjay may have gotten in touch with her during the incident. P.W. 1 further stated that he spent three days in the police station before being sent to the Magistrate for a statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. As a result, the witness was influenced by the police, and his testimony should not be trusted.
- There were no fingerprints taken from the vehicle, and no F.S.L. reports on the things seized from it were filed.
- As a result, the prosecution case is plagued with improbabilities and contradictions and should not be trusted.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- P.W. 1 is the most natural witness in the instance case, according to Mr. Swapan Banerjee and Mr. Sudip Ghosh, learned Senior Government Advocates.
- The circumstances strongly prove Jiarul's presence in the vehicle and his active participation in the crime with Monirul.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- In Union of India v. Sriharan Alias Murugan and others, a Constitution Bench held that such a sentence can only be imposed by the Supreme Court or the High Court when converting a death sentence to life imprisonment, and in Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab, the Apex Court held that such powers cannot be exercised by the Trial Courts.
- It was held that the Trial Court could not impose such a sentence, namely, life imprisonment without remission under Section 433A of the Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable under Section 304/34 of the IPC.
CONCLUSION
Further, that the Trial Court fell in error in directing that Monirul shall suffer life imprisonment till his death, that is, life imprisonment without remission. Hence, the Court modified the sentence imposed upon Monirul and directed that he shall suffer life imprisonment as prescribed under Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Indian Penal Code and interpreted by the Apex Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra.The appeal was thus disposed of.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
