Bipin Kumar Mondal vs State of West Bengal: Case Summary

Author: Aditi Gupta


[2010] INSC 544 (26 July 2010)





In the case of  BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL , an appeal has been filed against the judgment passed on 13th July , 2005 criminal appeal No. 352 of 2001 by the high court of Calcutta . High Court dismissed the appeal  and upheld the decision made by trial court under section 302 and 307 of IPC , 1860


Sujit Mondal PW1 , lodged an Ejhar with Raninnagar police on 6 / 12 /1999 stating that his father  Bipin kumar mondal (Appellant )  came to their house midnight on 5/12/1999 and attacked his mother  Usha  Rani and brother Ajit , with knife which caused severe injuries to her . When he tried to save his mother he was also attacked by his father which also caused severe injury to him on head and hands  and he has to escape out of fear .

On hearing the noise of cry of Sujit Mondal neighbors came and appellant ran thereof . Basis of  said Ejhar charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the murder of his wife and son under section 302 and 307 of IPC . Appellant pleaded that he is not guilty and was put to trial . The prosecution examined 11 witness and ejhar was filed on the instruction of sujit mondal . The appellant was convicted under Sec 302 of IPC and 6 months RI under 323 of IPC .

The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal 352 of 2001 , which was dismissed by High court order dated 13/ 7 / 2002 .

It was concluded that no evidence shows that Sujit  mondal could falsely implicate his father . The witnesses were natural  . No record shows what was the motive behind the murder of his wife and son by the appellant  . So  , it was quite difficult to understand the motive behind the offence .Medical evidence clearly shows that Ajit mondal was severely attacked by the knife . No record shows the appellant had received the sudden provocation from the victim or lost his self control .


When the matter was presented before the court , the main question was what was the motive of the appellant to kill his wife and son . Also , according to appellant he was innocent and has been falsely implicated  . Another fact was the knife by which appellant attacked his wife and son was  never discovered .


Several  cases were look upon in the consideration and at the end it was concluded that facts and circumstances do not present special feature .  After the  submissions made by both the parties, the Honorable Supreme Court stated that the bald contention made by the appellant council that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness has no force .

Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.