Pawns in Hands of Political Powers: Calcutta HC Reduces Sentence of Agricultural Labourers Convicted For Assaulting Man Over Political Rivalry
Case: Abu Fazel Fakir & Ors v. The State of West Bengal
Coram: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Case No.: C.R.A 51 of 2017
Court Observation: “The appellants are facing trial before the learned court below and also in this court for last 14 years. They have suffered tremendous mental agony during these years with pendency of a criminal case on their head. All the appellants are villagers, mostly maintain their livelihood as agricultural labourer. Some of the convicts are village housewives. The appellants do not know the intricacies of political ideology they become supporters of different political parties without having any knowledge about politics. They are practically preys and pawns in the hands of political powers.”
“Therefore, for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the IPC this Court is of the view that the accused persons shall be adequately punished if they are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC.”
“If the above two ingredients are satisfied, even overt act on the part of some of the persons sharing the common intention was held to be not necessary. A finding that the assailant concerned had a common intention with the other accused is necessary for taking resort to Section 34. In other words, to attract Section 34 of the IPC, it is not necessary that each one of the accused must assault the injured persons. It is enough if it is shown that they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in furtherance thereof each one played his assigned role by doing separate acts, similar or diverse.”
“From the evidence on record it is found that he received at least four injuries on different parts of his head and he was not assaulted alone by Salam Mallick. He was also assaulted by Nazir Fakir, Bubai Mallick and according to the injury report Sezehar Fakir and seven and eight others. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to hold conclusively as to who gave the fatal blow to Saddam Hossain causing his death. Therefore, Salam Mallick could not be convicted alone under Section 304-(II) of the IPC. Therefore, Salam Mallick, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2017 is entitled to get benefit of doubt and the learned trial judge ought to have passed an order of acquittal of the charge under Section 304-(II) of the IPC.”
“The facts clearly are consistent only with the hypothesis of their acting in furtherance of a common intention. They have, therefore, rightly been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC”
Previous Posts
No One Can Be Permitted to Take the Benefit of a Wrong Order Passed By A Court: Supreme Court
Supreme Court Bars Charging Compound Interest Or Penal Interest On Any Borrower During Loan Moratorium; Refuses Moratorium Extension Download Judgement
No One Can Be Permitted to Take the Benefit of a Wrong Order Passed By A Court: Supreme Court
