KANTI KUMARI ROY Vs. SURESH KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Patna reversing the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, Katihar. This is a case of patricide. Kritya Nand Roy, the father of the respondent No. 1 was killed on 3rd May, 1981 at village Rajwara, Police Station Korha, District Katihar, at about 11.00 a.m. The deceased had two sons, the respondent Suresh Kumar Roy (hereinafter called 'the accused') and P.W. 11 Ashok Kumar Roy. The accused was born to the first wife of the deceased whereas P.W. 11 Ashok Kumar Roy was born to his second wife P.W. 2 Kanti Kumari Roy,. the appellant herein. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under.

(2.) On the date of the incident at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased had called the Panchayati of his near relatives P.W. 1 Basudeo Roy, P.W. 3 Ramanand Roy, P.W. 5, Laxmi Narayan Roy, P.W. 6 Nityanand Roy, P.W. 8 Parmanand Roy, P.W. 9 Sukhdeo Roy and P.W. 12 Satyanand Roy and others including the accused and P.W, 11, Ashok Kumar Roy for effecting partition of his Rajwara and Katihar houses and certain lands belonging to him between his two sons. This Panchayati was called in the Baithak of his house. The deceased suggested that the Rajwara house may be allotted to the accused and the Katihar house to P.W. 11. The accused, however, resisted the suggestion, and claimed a share in the Katihar house also on the ground that his children were studying in Katihar and needed some place for their residence The deceased responded to this demand by agreeing to allot a western room of the Katihar house for the residence of his children till they completed their studies but insisted that the ownership of house would belong to P.W. 11 only. The accused demanded an extra room in that house for a kitchen but that demand was spurned. The accused then put up a demand for a share in the lands situate at Katihar. The deceased rejected this demand by stating that he had already given that land to P.W. 2, his step-mother, and none could get a share therein. This resulted in a heated argument between the deceased and the accused. As a result of this heated discussion the Panchyati dispersed. The accused who was agitated pulled out his licensed Revolver from the pocket of his Bundi (Jacket) and moved towards his father. P. W. 11, however, intervened by raising a shout to caution his father. The accused thereupon fired a shot at page No. W. 11 saying he must die first. The shot hit P.W. 11 in the abdomen region. Thereafter the accused fired another shot at page No. W. 11 which pierced through his arm into his chest. Thereupon P.W. 11 fell down. The deceased challenged the accused whereupon the latter fired a shot at him which pierced his chest, Two further shots were fired at the deceased resulting in his death. The accused thereafter went in search of P.W. 2 who was also in the same house and was watching the Panchayati proceedings from the adjoining room. In the meantime P.W. 11 slipped out of the house and went to the house of his Uncle P.W. 11 Basudeo Roy. Maya and Raju, daughter and son of P.W. 1 dressed his wounds. It is the prosecution case that when the accused went in search of P.W. 2, the latter ran out of the house and could not be traced. She ultimately took a bus and reached Katihar. The prosecution case is that there-. after the accused went to the Korha- police station at about 2.45 p.m. and surrendered his licenced revolver along with seven live cartridges. He was taken in custody by the ploice and thereafter the police arrived at the scene of occurrence, recorded the statement of P. W. 12 Satyanand Roy and prepared the inquest Panchnama Ex. 11. An offence under Sections 2 and 307 IPC and Section 27, Arms Act was registered against the accused. On the conclusion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that his step mother P.W. 2, being on inimical terms with him, had falsely implicted him with a view to ensuring that her son P.W. 11 may assume possession of all the moveable and immoveable properties of the deceased. He further stated that since P.W. 2 had obtained a decree of divorce earlier she apprehended that the deceased may give a share to the accused from the lands mutated in her name and may also delete her name as a nominee from the insurance policy; so she took out his (accused) license revolver from under the pillow of his bed and shot the deceased therewith and fled away. The accused also examined witnesses in support of this version. In addition he pleaded alibi stating he had gone to Purnea to get his scooter repaired.

(3.) Before we deal with the prosecution version regarding the crime, we may notice the physical condition of the house in which the incident occurred. The Baithak of the house is situate in the south. Actually there is an inverted 'L' shaped verandah, the pillar of the inverted 'L' running from west to east and then turning to the north, making the base south-north. In the east-west portion is situate the Baithak. In the north-south portion is the chowky where the dead body was found. According to the prosecution after the exchange of heated words between the accused and the deceased, the latter went towards the chowky, when the accused whipped out the revolver. When P.W. 11 saw him moving towards the deceased, he raised an alarm to caution the deceased whereupon the accused turned his wrath at him and fired two shots in quick succession at him and then went for the deceased who was coming towards P.W. 11 to stop the accused from killing him. The police found the corpse of the deceased lying in the chowky in the north-south portion of the verandah.