© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
27 years on, Calcutta High Court upholds conviction in murder case over theft of Rs 800, bicycle
Calcutta High Court conviction, Akalu Mondal killing: It was alleged that 14 persons “brutally attacked and killed” one Akalu Mondal and assaulted two others in 1998. The court termed the crime as barbaric and inhuman.
The court held that it was a ‘one-sided and heavy handed handed murderous assault’ on the victims. (Image is generated using AI)
Calcutta High Court conviction: Twenty seven years after the incident took place, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of persons accused of killing a man for filing a complaint over the theft of Rs 800.
Calling the crime “barbaric and inhuman”, a bench comprising Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed the appeal challenging the conviction of the accused persons.
“The crime committed by the appellants was barbaric and inhuman. It was in calculated and pre-meditated,” it held.
It was alleged that 14 persons “brutally attacked and killed” one Akalu Mondal and assaulted two others in 1998.
The prosecution alleged that about 5-6 months prior to the incident, the accused Gudar Mondal in an inebriated state snatched Rs 800 and a bicycle from one Bijoy Mondal who is the brother of the victim. Following this, the victim lodged a complaint before the police.
A meeting was subsequently called for settling the dispute in the presence of distinguished villagers and elders. However, the 14 persons arrived at the meeting armed with sharp cutting weapons and assaulted Akalu Mondal and several others, it was alleged.
Akalu died on the spot.
A trial court held all the accused persons guilty under Section 147 (rioting) and 148 (rioting with deadly weapon) of the IPC, and were sentenced to one year imprisonment. Among them, three accused persons were also found guilty under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC read with section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Story continues below this ad
While hearing the appeal, the high court noted that the alleged theft of the bicycle and Rs 800 a few months before the incident does not constitute a sudden and grave provocation to cause the death of the victim.
The court observed, “If at all the complaint against the alleged act of theft is taken to have given any provocation to the appellants, the same has to be taken to have supplied a motive to the appellants to kill the victim.”
The court further noted that the victims had not invited a fight with the convicts, instead they were grievously assaulted by them.
“In the present case, the victims did not invite a fight with the appellants. Rather, the victims were waiting for a Salish. There was no fight at all between the appellants and the victims. The appellants were not injured. The victims ran away to save themselves as they were intimidated and scared by the aggression of the appellants and other accused persons. The appellants and other accused grievously assaulted them.”
Story continues below this ad
The court held that it was a ‘one-sided and heavy handed handed murderous assault’ on the victims.
The court was informed that one of the convict is 80 years old and is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The other is 83 years old and has undergone several cataract surgeries and has become partially blind. Therefore, they had prayed for reduction in sentence.
The court refused to reduce the sentence imposed on them while observing that the convicts are hardened criminals having no fear of law.
“The appellants are hardened criminals who have no regard or fear of the law. Hence, the punishment imposed on the appellants does not deserve to be reduced,” the court said.
Story continues below this ad
The court, however, directed the jail authorities to extend all medical facilities that a convict is entitled to under the law and jail rules.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Live Blog