Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal - Synopsis
Ahir Mitra 11 Jun 2021

Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal.

(2010) 12 SCC 91.

An appeal has been made against the verdict of the high court of Calcutta in the matter Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, which was handed out on July 13, 2005 in criminal appeal No. 352 of 2001. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court's verdict made under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sujit Mondal filed an Ejhar with the Raninnagar police department, alleging that his father Bipin Kumar Mondal entered to their residence late at night and assaulted his mother Usha Rani and brother Ajit with a knife, injuring her severely.

 When he attempted to defend his mother, he was attacked by his father, who inflicted serious injuries to his head and hands, forcing him to flee in terror. When neighbors heard Sujit Mondal's cries, they rushed running, and the appellant fled. The appellant was charged with the murder of his wife and son under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the Ejhar charge sheet. The appellant entered a not guilty plea and was placed on trial. The prosecution called 11 witnesses, and an ejhar was filed on Sujit Mondal's request. The appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months in prison under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was determined that there was no proof that Sujit Mondal could fraudulently accuse his father. Natural witnesses were present. There is no evidence that the appellant's wife and kid were murdered for any reason. As a result, it was impossible to deduce the motivation for the crime. Ajit Mondal was visibly harmed by the knife, according to medical data. There is no evidence that the appellant was provoked or lost his composure as a result of the victim's unexpected provocation. When the case came before the court, the key question was what motivated the appellant to murder his wife and kid. Furthermore, the appellant claims that he is innocent and has been wrongfully accused. Another truth is that the knife used by the appellant to assault his wife and kids was never recovered.

Several cases were examined, and it was found that the facts and circumstances did not show any unique characteristics. Following both sides' representations, the Honorable Supreme Court declared that the appellant council's bare assertion that no conviction may be recorded in the situation of a single eyewitness is without merit. The appeal is rejected because it is without merit.


C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work









Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail