Case: Shyamal Saha  Vs. State Of West Bengal

19th May, 1995 a thermal plant of the Calcutta Electric Supply Company had opened across the river Ganges in Mauza Bhabanipur Char, District Hooghly, West Bengal.3. Paritosh Saha was with his mother Bidyutprava Saha (PW-5) at about 5.00/5.30 p.m. on 19th May, 1995. Thereafter, he and his nephew Animesh Saha (CW-1) aged about 10 years went for a walk on the banks of the river Ganges where they met Gopal Saha, with whom they struck a conversation. At that time, the appellants Shyamal Saha and Prosanta @ Kalu Kabiraj also came there and called Paritosh to go across the river to see the Char (island). Animesh also expressed his desire to go to the Char but Shyamal asked him to return home.4. When the three of them (Paritosh, Shyamal and Prosanta) were about to board Asitboat, they were joined by Dipak Saha (PW-6) and Panchu Sarkar (PW-11). The five of them then went across the river Ganges and, according to Animesh, when they reached the other side of the river, Dipak and Panchu went towards the thermal plant while Paritosh, Shyamal and Prosanta went in a different direction towards the jungle. Thereafter, Animesh came back to his house.5. According to Bidyutprava Saha, at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. Shyamal and Prosanta came to her house and asked the whereabouts of Paritosh.6. According tobrother Amaresh Saha (PW-1) at about 10.00 p.m. Shyamal and Prosanta came to his house and enquired about Paritosh.7. Early next morning on 20th May, 1995 Bidyutprava Saha noticed that Paritosh had not eaten his dinner which she had kept for him. She mentioned this to Amaresh and also informed him that Shyamal and Prosanta had come and met her the previous evening at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. During the course of this conversation, Animesh revealed to his father Amaresh that he had seen Paritosh cross the river Ganges the previous evening in a boat along with Shyamal and Prosanta.8. On receiving this information Amaresh enquired from Shyamal and Prosanta the whereabouts of Paritosh but they informed him that they had seen him across the river with some boys. Later in the day, Amaresh was informed by Dipak and Panchu that they had crossed the river along with Paritosh, Shyamal and Prosanta. After crossing the river, Dipak and Panchu had gone to see the thermal plant and the others had gone in another direction towards the jungle. Dipak and Panchu pleaded ignorance of the subsequent movements of Paritosh.9. Later in the evening at about 7.30 p.m. Amaresh Saha lodged a First Information Report regarding the disappearance of Paritosh.10. Sometime in the morning of 21st May, 1995 the corpse of Paritosh was found in the river tied to two iron chairs with a napkin around his neck. The police were informed about the recovery of the dead body and an inquest was carried out and the iron chairs and napkin were seized in the presence of some witnesses. It was noticed that a part ofskin was burnt perhaps due to pouring of acid.11. On these broad facts, investigations were carried out and Shyamal and Prosanta were charged with having abducted Paritosh and thereafter having murdered him.In its judgment and order dated 29th July, 1998 the Trial Court held that neither the charge of abduction nor the charge of murder was proved against Shyamal and Prosanta and therefore they were acquitted (Session Trial Case No. 21 of 1997 decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly). As far as the charge of abduction is concerned, that is not in issue before us and need not detain us any further.13. The acquittal by the Trial Court was primarily in view of the absence of consistency in the testimony of Amaresh, Bidyutprava Saha, Animesh, Dipak and Panchu. For example, it was observed that if Animesh had in fact informed Amaresh and Bidyutprava Saha that he had gone to the banks of the river with Paritosh, it would have been reflected in their testimony. Similarly, Bidyutprava Saha did not say anything about Paritosh going to the river although she saw him at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. on 19th May, 1995. The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Debabrata Dubey (PW-16) had yet another version of the events. His testimony indicated that many of the facts stated in the oral testimony of the witnesses were not put across to him at any time, suggesting considerable padding and embellishments in their testimony. As such, it was not possible to lend credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Additionally, the Trial Court noted that it was a case of circumstantial evidence and also that there was no motive for Shyamal and Prosanta to have murdered Paritosh.Feeling aggrieved by their acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the Calcutta High Court against Shyamal and Prosanta. The appeal was allowed by a judgment and order dated 11th March, 2008 (State of West Bengal v. Shyamal Saha and another, 113 CWNThe decision of the Trial Court was reversed and they were convicted for the murder of Paritosh and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each.15. According to the High Court, the case of the prosecution hinged, essentially, on the evidence of Dipak and Panchu, as well as of Animesh. The High Court considered their evidence and held that all five (Dipak, Panchu, Paritosh, Shyamal and Prosanta) crossed the river in a boat in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. on 19th May, 1995. This was supported by the testimony of Animesh who also wanted to go along with all of them but was prohibited from doing so by Shyamal.16. It was also held, on the basis of the post mortem report given by Dr. P.G. Bhattacharya (PW-15) and his testimony that Paritosh died soon after 5.30 p.m. on 19th May, 1995. The High Court came to this conclusion on the basis of thestatement that the death took place between 65 and 70 hours before he conducted the post mortem examination. Since the post mortem examination was conducted at about 12.00 noon on 22nd May, 1995 working backwards, it appeared that Paritosh died soon after 5.30 p.m. on 19th May, 1995.17. Finally, the High Court held that Paritosh was last seen with Shyamal and Prosanta and therefore they had to explain the events that had occurred after they were last seen together. In the absence of any explanation offered by them, the last seen theory would apply and it must be held that Shyamal and Prosanta had murdered Paritosh.Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, Shyamal and Prosanta have preferred this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
21. The principles laid down in Chandrappawere generally reiterated but mainly reformulated in Ganpatv. State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 59 ) though without reference to Chandrappa and by referring to decisions not considered therein. The reformulation of the principles in Ganpatis asThere is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and to come to its ownThe appellate court can also review the trialconclusion with respect to both facts andWhile dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons may set aside the judgment ofAn order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there arefor doing so. If the order is, it is a compelling reason forWhen the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the materials placed. (Vide MadanLal v. State of J&K (1997) 7 SCC 677 ), GhureyLal v. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 ), Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1992) 2 SCC 105 ) and JaswantSingh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484 ).Undoubtedly, we are suffering from an overdose of precedents but be that as it may, from the principles laid down, it appears at first blush that the High Court is entitled to virtually step into the shoes of the Trial Court hearing submissions of learned counsel and then decide the case as a court of first instance. Perhaps this is not what is intended, notwithstanding the broad language used in Chandrappa and Ganpat. Otherwise, the decision of the Trial Court would be a meaningless exercise and this Court would become a first appellate court from a decision of the High Court in a case of acquittal by the Trial Court. Realistically speaking, although the principles stated are broad, it is the obligation of the High Court to consider and identify the error in the decision of the Trial Court and then decide whether the error is gross enough to warrant interference. The High Court is not expected to merely substitute its opinion for that of the Trial Court only because the first two principles in Chandrappa and Ganpatpermit it to do so and because it has the power to do so – it has to correct an error of law or fact significant enough to necessitate overturning the verdict of the Trial Court. This is where the High Court has to exercise its discretion very cautiously, keeping in mind the acquittal of the accused and the rights of the victim (who may or may not be before it). This is also where the fifth principle laid down in Chandrappa and Ganpatcomes into operation.What is also important in this case is that it is one of circumstantial evidence. Following the principles laid down in several decisions of this Court beginning with SharadBirdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 ) it is clear that the chain of events must be so complete as to leave no room for any other hypothesis except that the accused were responsible for the death of the victim. This principle has been followed and reiterated in a large number of decisions over the last 30 years and one of the more recent decisions in this regard is MajenderanLangeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2013) 7 SCC 192 ).The High Court did not take this into consideration and merely proceeded on the basis of the last seen theory.The facts of this case demonstrate that the first link in the chain of circumstances is missing. It is only if this first link is established that the subsequent links may be formed on the basis of the last seen theory. But the High Court overlooked the missing link, as it were, and directly applied the last seen theory. In our opinion, this was a rather unsatisfactory way of dealing with the appeal.Under the circumstances, we are unable to agree with learned counsel for the State and are of the opinion that there was really no occasion for the High Court to have overturned the view of the Trial Court which was not only a reasonable view but a probable view of the