Even If Accused Had No Motive, Knowledge of Harm Caused By ‘Tari’ Sufficient for Conviction – Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction Under Sections 304 and 328 IPC
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of Prasad Ray @ Roy under IPC Sections 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison), modifying only the quantum of sentences.
Legal Background and Charges:
The appeal stemmed from the conviction of the appellant, Prasad Ray, who was accused of administering poisoned ‘Tari’ (a local form of alcohol) which resulted in the death of one Jagadish Mandal and caused severe health issues to several others. Initially, Ray was sentenced to seven years under Section 304 Part II and six years under Section 328 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malda.
Facts and Issues:
On the evening of November 22, 2004, the appellant allegedly invited Jagadish Mandal and others to consume ‘Tari’ at his residence, which he provided at no cost. Following the consumption, Mandal and others suffered severe reactions, leading to Mandal’s death at a local hospital and the hospitalization of others.
Court’s Assessment:
The court delved deeply into multiple facets of the case, emphasizing the significance of indirect evidence in the absence of direct proof of motive or possession of the poison. Citing precedents like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the court observed that the lack of motive does not undermine the fact that the appellant had knowledge about the injurious nature of the ‘Tari’. It noted:
Eyewitness Testimony: Multiple eyewitness accounts and medical evidence confirmed the consumption of poisoned alcohol at the appellant’s residence, reinforcing the link to the subsequent adverse health effects and death.
Medical Evidence: Medical professionals testified about the symptoms consistent with poisoning from the consumed ‘Tari’, corroborating the cause of death as poisoning from Endosulfan (a toxic pesticide).
Knowledge Over Motive: The court highlighted that knowledge of the potential harm, even in the absence of a direct motive, is sufficient for conviction under the charges, aligning with legal precedents that do not strictly require the establishment of motive when the knowledge and actions of the accused clearly demonstrate culpability.
Decision: Upholding the conviction, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) modified the sentences to five years for each count, to run concurrently, citing the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: The court’s decision reinforces the principle that the knowledge of potential harm plays a crucial role in criminal liability, especially in cases involving indirect evidence of culpability.
Date of Decision: April 29, 2024
Prasad Ray @ Roy versus The State of West Bengal,
