NAME : DIPANWITA SINHA

ROLL NO : 03 , B.COM LL.B V SEM

Dhananjoy Chatterjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
DEFENDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LEGISLATION

WEBSITES:
CASES REFFERED

 BOOKS REFFERED

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Art Article

CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

Hon‟ble Honourable

ILR Indian Law Reporter

IPC Indian Penal Code J. Justice

Ltd. Limited MP Madhya Pradesh

NOC Notes Of Cases

Ors. Others

S. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT UNDER ART 161 OF THE
CONSTITUTION. THE PETITION INVOKES ITS WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 161 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IT
SET FORWARD THE LAW AND FACTS ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE BASED. THE PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF ART 161 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH GUARANTEES to pardon a person who has been proved
guilty in court , IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE.
 STATEMENTS OF FACTS
FACTS:- Hetal Parekh a young 18 years old school-going girl was raped and murdered in her flat No. 3-A, on the third
floor of 'Anand Apartment'. The appellant was challenged and tried for rape and murder and also for an offence under
Section 380 IPC, for committing theft of a wrist watch from the said flat. The appellant,Dhananjay was one of the
security guards deputed to guard the building 'Anand Apartment' by M/s. Security and Investigating Bureau of which Mr.
Shyam Karmakar was the proprietor. Hetal,the deceased was complaining to her mother Yashmoti Parekh that the
appellant had been teasing her on her way to and back from the school and had proposed to her on that day to
accompany him to cinema hall to watch a movie. Yashmoti told her husband Nagardas Parekh on about the behaviour of
the appellant towards their daughter, who in turn complained to Shyam Karmakar and requested him to replace the
appellant. As per their normal routine when Nagardas Parekh and his son Bhawesh Parekh,father and brother of the
deceased respectively, left for their place of business and college in the morning on and Yashmoti,the mother of the
deceased had gone to visit temple.At that time,Hetal,the deceased was all alone in the flat at that time.Shortly after
Yashmoti, the mother of the deceased left for the Temple, the appellant rushed to her flat and commited the alleged
crimes. When Yashmoti returned from the Temple,on reaching her flat she after entering in the flat found Hetal,lying on
the floor,unconscious.The doctor after examining the deceased, pronounced her dead. Thereafter her father informed
the Bhawanipore Police Station at about the telephone. On receipt of the telephonic message, sub-inspector Gurupada
Som, the acting duty officer, rushed to the place of occurrence along with some other police personnel and recorded the
FIR on the statement of Yashmoti Parekh, the mother of the deceased and commenced investigation. The sessions Judge
in this case relying upon circumstantial evidence found the accused guilty and therefore,sentenced him to death. The
appeal of Dhanajay Chatterjee for proving his innocence was also rejected by the Calcutta High court and thereafter by
the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:- 1.Whether or not the appellant was the assailant who had raped and murdered the defenceless
young girl.

2.Whether the appellant had a motive to commit the alleged crime.

3.Whether this case falls under the category of ‘rarest of the rare cases’.
 ARGUMENT ADVANCES
ISSUE 1-  Whether or not the appellant was the assailant who had raped and murdered the defenceless young girl.:-
1.The Prosecution,on the basis of circumstantial evidences argued that the appellant was the one who raped the
deceased.The appellant used to follow and tease the deceased everytime she used to come back and go to school.She
had also complained to her parents about this and accordingly,a transfer order was made of the appellant to Paras
apartment.

Also,he had used the lift for going to the flat of the deceased which is evident from the testimony of the guard of the
lift.Also,his semen was found inside the vagina of the deceased.On the place of incident,a cream coloured button of the
appelant’s shirt was also found which later on after investigation was proved to be that from the shirt of the
appellant.Also,the appellant had escaped after this incident and after many raids by the police,he could not be found
and after many months he was arrested from the house of his uncle where he was hiding behind grass straws.Also,his
shirt and trouser which he was wearing at the time of the incident was recovered from the house of appellant.Also,the
watch of the deceased which was stolen from her flat at the time of incident was also recovered from his house.

ISSUE 2-  Whether the appellant had a motive to commit the alleged crime.
Yes,the appellant had motive to commit the alleged crime as we can see from the evidences that the deceased was
being teased by the appellant when she used to go to or came back from the school. She had brought it to the notice of
her mother PW 3 on a number of occasions, the latest in the series being on 2.3.1990. Yashmoti PW 3 informed her
husband Nagardas PW 4 about the complaints. From the testimony of Nagardas PW 4, it transpires that after he came to
know about the misbehaviour of the appellant from his wife PW 3 on 2.3.1990, he called some other dwellers of the
Apartment to apprise them of the same. Mahendra Chauhatia PW 13 and Harish Vakharia PW 14 have deposed that
they had been called by Nagardas PW 4 who reported to them that the appellant had been teasing his daughter and that
PW 4 had suggested that the appellant should be replaced by another security guard. They (PW 13 and PW 14) both
agreed. The testimony of PW 13 and PW 14 has remained totally unchallenged in cross-examination. After consulting
PW 13 and PW 14, Nagardas PW 4 asked Shyamal Karmakar PW 21, the employer of the appellant, to meet him and
according to the statement of PW 21 Karmakar he came to the flat of Nagardas PW 4 on 3.3.1990, where he was
informed about the teasing of the daughter of PW 4 by the appellant, PW 21 deposed that Nagardas PW 4 told him to
replace the appellant by another security guard and even handed over a written complaint Ex.4 to him.
ISSUE 3-  Whether this case falls under the category of ‘rarest of the rare cases’.
This case was of the nature of ‘rarest of the rare cases’ becaue in this case the deceased had been killen very severely
and mercilessly by the security guard whose duty was to protect.So,the appellant must be awarded capital punishment.