High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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,

Similar News