MADHUMOY MADHUSUDAM BOUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant is convicted under S. 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura. The High court on reference confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. The charge against the appellant was that on 17/02/1988 at about 1 a. m. he took his wife in a truck and drove the truck to a jungle. There he throttled her to death and ran the truck on her and thereafter dragged the body from the jungle to the left of the road and disappeared. The case mainly rested on the sole testimony of Public Witness 18, the cleaner of the truck. The trial court examined 22 witnesses. The other witnesses only spoke about certain circumstances. The learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly relying on the evidence of Public Witness 18 convicted the appellant. The same was affirmed by the High court. It is submitted in this appeal that Public Witness 18 was examined at a belated stage and therefore his evidence does not inspire confidence and also is not trustworthy. Further submission is that the evidence of the other witnesses even, if accepted, did not connect the accused. To appreciate these contentions it becomes necessary to state the facts and also refer to the evidence of the material witnesses. The deceased was the wife of the accused. They were married some years ago and they had a child. The appellant was a driver of a truck owned by Public Witness 8. It is alleged that the accused was treating the deceased. There were strained feelings between them. On 18/02/1988 at about 3 p. m. the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station received an information from Public Witness 1, a villager that the dead body of an unknown female was found lying in Paharpur jungle. The officer made an entry and endorsed the case to Public Witness 2 for preliminary inquiry. Upon being informed that some unknown person had killed the deceased, the inquest was held, the photographs of the dead body were taken and the body was sent for post-mortem. On 29/02/1988 the father of the deceased with two others PWs 14 and 20 came to the police station and gave a report that the wife of the accused was taken by the accused in a truck on the night of 17/02/1988 and Fe 18/02/1988 at about 1-1.30 a. m. and they have not returned. The same information was entered in the General Diary. The dead body was identified by pws 14 and 20. The Investigating Officer got an information that the truck which was driven by the accused met with an accident and he contacted the owner Public Witness 8 and verified from him that the accused was the driver of the truck till 17/02/1988 and Public Witness 18 was its cleaner. The investigating Officer searched the house of the accused and found him to be absconding. They proceeded with the investigation and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and also got the statements recorded under S. 161 Criminal Procedure Code. The truck was seized. While so, on 27/04/1988 that is two months after the occurrence Public Witness 18 alleged to be cleaner of the truck came to the police station. Public Witness 22 the Investigating officer recorded the statement of Public Witness 18 who is put forward as an eye- witness to the occurrence. He stated that on the fateful night he was travelling in the truck along with the accused. The accused entered in his house and came back with his wife namely, the deceased from the house and both of them boarded the truck into driver's cabin and Public Witness 18 was sent on the roof of the cabin. He drove the truck to a jungle. Then there he brought down the deceased and throttled her to death. Then he ran the truck over her body. Thereafter he dragged the body to the jungle on the left of the road to a short distance from the road. Then he drove the truck to Bagatabore and collected labourers and went to work on his duty. Public Witness 18 also stated that on the way the truck turned upside down on the road and one labourer also died. In respect of this incident a crime was registered.

(2.) After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was lodged. The plea of the accused is one of denial and that he has been falsely implicated.

(3.) The circumstances relied upon by the courts below are firstly that the accused was ill-treating the deceased and secondly that on the fateful night the accused came in the truck and took the deceased and thereafter only the dead body was found in the jungle. The medical evidence is relied upon to show that it was an unnatural death and was due to violence. As far as the complicity of the accused is concerned, the courts below relied on the evidence of Public Witness 18. If the evidence of Public Witness 18, the sole eye-witness is found to be unreliable, as contended by the learnedcounsel, then we are left only with one incriminating circumstance namely that the deceased and the accused went together in the truck that is to say she was last seen in the company of the accused. This circumstance by itself cannot bring home the guilt to the accused.