BUDHADEV KARMASKAR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

BUDHADEV KARMASKAR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation	2022 SCC OnLine SC 704
Date of Judgment	May 19, 2022
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Type	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2010
Appellant	Budhadev Karmaskar
Respondent	State of West Bengal & Ors.
Bench	Markandey Katju, Gyan Sudha Misra
Referred	Article 21, section 302  IPC, Section 164 CrPC

FACTS OF THE CASE

On the ill-fated evening of September 17, 1999, at approximately 9:15 p.m., a horrific murder occurred in the red-light district located on Jogen Dutta Lane, causing great distress among the general public. The victim, Shrimati Chayay Rani Pal, also known as Buri, a 45-year-old sex worker, resided in a three-story building within the aforementioned red-light area in Kolkata.

Before the incident unfolded, the deceased was sleeping near the staircase on the second floor of the building, just outside her room. The accused individual ascended to the second floor and accidentally stumbled upon the victim, resulting in a loud argument. Budhadev Karmaskar, the accused, proceeded to physically assault the victim with punches and kicks, causing severe bleeding. Eventually, she fell to the ground, at which point the assailant grabbed her hair and forcefully slammed her head against the wall.

Consequently, the victim began bleeding from her head, nose, and ear. The commotion caught the attention of Asha Khatun, a maid present on the second floor, who promptly raised an alarm. Other residents of the building gathered at the scene and witnessed the accused mercilessly beating the deceased. In response to the growing protest, the assailant abruptly abandoned the victim, pushed and shoved the onlookers, and fled the area.

Around 2:15 a.m., approximately five hours after the incident occurred, the police apprehended the accused in Jogen Dutta Lane itself. Meanwhile, the victim was transported to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

Arguments given by the appellant in Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal-

• The attorney representing the appellant strongly refuted all the charges presented by the prosecution.
• The attorney argued that the testimony given by the eyewitness, Asha Khatun, during the initial questioning cannot be considered valid under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as she did not appear for cross-examination.
• To support this argument, the attorney referenced the case of Raghuvir Singh v. State of Uttaranchal.
• Furthermore, it was asserted that none of the local residents from the crime scene were summoned as witnesses. This aspect led the attorney to question the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.

Arguments given by the respondent in Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal

• The prosecution put forth evidence indicating that the accused and the deceased had a strained relationship and engaged in intermittent arguments.
• According to the prosecution, a qualified doctor’s report presented in court confirmed that the accused physically assaulted the deceased using punches and kicks.
• The report further revealed a total of eleven injuries on different areas of the face and forehead, which ultimately led to her demise.
• The prosecution argued that eight out of the eleven injuries were significant enough to result in death under normal circumstances.

Order of the Court 

The honorable High Court of Calcutta dismissed the appeal in this case. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the statement of the eye-witness, Asha Khatun, should be disregarded because she was not cross-examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The court considered the eye-witness’s statement to be credible and valuable since it provided a detailed account of the accused’s actions. The statement of Asha Khatun also established that there was animosity between the accused and the deceased, and they frequently quarreled.

According to the eye-witness’s testimony, the accused intentionally tripped over the deceased, who was sleeping near the staircase, resulting in a confrontation.

The court believed that the severe injuries inflicted by the accused were corroborated by the post-mortem report prepared by the attending physician. The injuries were found to be sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in normal circumstances. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and the High Court has not committed any error in upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

Additionally, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the defense had not provided an explanation for the injury near the left eye of the accused, considering that their defense was primarily based on denial.

Conclusion

This significant verdict serves as a striking illustration of the mistreatment and violence endured by sex workers, perpetrated by individuals who view them as mere objects. It sends a clear societal message that such inhumane acts should not be tolerated in a civilized community.

This legal case brings attention to the dire circumstances faced by sex workers, who engage in their occupation not out of choice, but due to the forces of poverty. Despite the social stigma associated with their profession, they are entitled to live with dignity. 

According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, every person possesses the fundamental right to life and personal freedom, which extends beyond mere survival. However, societal stereotypes make it exceedingly difficult for sex workers to claim these rights.

As long as prostitution remains unrecognized as a legitimate occupation in the eyes of the law, sex workers will remain vulnerable to exploitation by those who hold them in disdain. In order to prevent such abhorrent crimes, the Supreme Court, upon its own initiative, took notice of this case and established guidelines to protect the rights of sex workers.

This ruling not only deeply affected the collective conscience of the public but also served as a source of inspiration and catalyst for social transformation.

Aditya Dikshit, Amity Law School, Amity University, Lucknow, An intern under Legal Vidhiya.