NAGINDRA BALA MITRA Vs. SUNIL CHANDRA ROY
LAWS(SC)-1960-2-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on February 12,1960

NAGINDRA BALA MITRA Appellant
VERSUS
SUNIL CHANDRA ROY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MOHINDER SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1971-9-24] [REFERRED MADIVALAPRA CHANNAPPA HULGUR AND ANOTHER,AIR 1966 MYSORE 142.]
PREM PRAKASH ALIAS PREM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1995-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL BIJALBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1966-9-8] [REFERRED]
DILIP DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1996-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
RANCHHODSINGH DIWANSINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1982-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
HARDA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1988-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
K M NANAVATI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1961-11-21] [REFERRED]
DILWAR ISLAM LASKAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1996-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
TALA DADA @ RAMJIT MURMU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH MATHAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-11-324] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERENDRA SINGH @ DHEERU VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-9-90] [REFERRED TO]
KURIAKOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-328] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH OJHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-6-36] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. K. Das, J. - (1.)(on behalf of himself and A. K. SARKAR, J.) This is an unfortunate case in more than one sense. So far back as August 11, 1950, there was some incident in premises No. 18 Bondel Road in Calcutta in the course of which one Col. S. C. Mitra, a Gynaecologist and Surgeon, lost his life. Col. Mitra was the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2. In connection with the Colonel's death, Sunil Chandra Roy, at present respondent No. 1, and his two brothers were placed on their trial for offences under Ss. 302, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Very shortly put, the case against them was that they had trespassed into 18 Bondel Road, following upon a quarrel regarding the supply of water to premises No. 17 Bondel Road which belonged to petitioner No. 2 and consisted of several flats one of which on the second floor was in occupation of Sunil as a tenant; that they had attacked Col. Mitra and petitioner No. 2; that Sunil had inflicted a blow or blows on the Colonel which caused his death and that one of his brothers Satyen had inflicted some minor injuries on the person of petitioner No. 2. There was also a charge against Sunil for an assault alleged to have been committed on Mrs. Sati Mitra, wife of petitioner No. 2. The accused persons were, in the first instance, tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Alipur with the result that Sunil was convicted under Ss. 325 and 447 and Satyen under Ss. 323 and 447, Indian Penal Code. So far as the third brother Amalesh was concerned, his case was referred to the High Court as the learned Judge did not agree with the jury's verdict of not guilty.
(2.)Sunil and Satyen appealed to the High Court against their convictions and sentences; the State of West Bengal obtained a Rule for enhancement of the sentences passed on Sunil and Satyen. The appeal, the Rules and Reference were heard together. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court of Calcutta directed that Sunil and Satyen be retried at the Criminal Sessions of the High Court. The Reference in respect of Amalesh was rejected and the Rule for enhancement of the sentences passed necessarily fell through.
(3.)Sunil and Satyen were then tried at the Criminal Sessions of the High Court by Mitter, J., with the aid of a special jury. The jury unanimously found Sunil guilty under sections 325 and 447, and Satyen under sections 323 and 447, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced both Sunil and Satyen to various terms of imprisonment and fines.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.