TARUN CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas (N) in Sessions Trial No. 15(5) of 2003 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 54(4) of 2003 convicting the Appellant and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R. I. for one year under Section 302 I. P. C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that Alok Chandra Chanda lodged information with the Titagarh P. S. alleging that on 20-1-2003 at about 10.00 a. m. while he was in his grocery shop and his two daughters were not at home, Tarun Chakraborty, the son-in-law of the informant went to his house and hacked his wife with a sharp weapon. As his wife cried out, the neighbouring people came to his house and the accused Tarun Chakraborty fled away. On getting the information, he along with his two daughters came back home and saw that the victim was lying with bleeding injuries. She was taken to Dr. B. N. Bose Hospital where she was declared dead. It has been alleged that the informant's third daughter Mili was married with the accused Tarun Chakraborty of Saradapally, P. S. Titagarh in the year 1992. After a few days of marriage, disturbances arose between the couple. For the last three months Mili started living in the house of the informant with her son, because her husband Tarun Chakraborty and the mother-in-law Itirani Chakraborty used to beat up Mili. Accused Tarun put pressure on Mili for fetching money from the house of the informant and the informant gave him Rs. 60,000/-. Thereafter the accused demanded more money for the construction of his house and as the informant could not give that amount of money, they started committing torture upon the daughter of the informant. For the said reasons, the accused came to his house and finding Ruma Chanda alone, hacked her to death. After the incident the accused fled away and many persons of the locality saw the occurrence. After receipt of the complaint, the Titagarh P. S. Case No. 20 dated 20-1-2003 was started under Section 302 I. P. C. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted. The charge was framed under Section 302 I. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) Mr. Safiullah submits that according to P. W. 1 some persons reported that Tarun Chakraborty committed the murder and Mili was not present in the house at the time of occurrence. It is contended that P. W. 1 in his cross-examination could not say who informed him of the occurrence. Mr. Safiullah submits that according to P. W. 6 none reported to him about such occurrence. It is contended that according to P. W. 11 the history of assault was recorded, but the name of the assailant was not recorded. Mr. Safiullah has drawn our attention to the contradictions taken in the cross-examination of the I. O. where the I. O. has stated that P. W. 5 and P. W.6 stated to him that they did not see the occurrence. It is submitted mat P. W. 2 a neighbour of P. W. 1 did not see the occurrence. Mr. Safiullah submits that the daughter Mili has come back to her father's house and, as such, the animus is to be considered. Mr. Safiullah contends that animosity was prevailing between the parties. Mr. Safiullah submits that the learned Trial Court recorded the conviction on the basis of surmise and conjecture. It is contended by Mr. Safiullah that suspicion however grave cannot form the basis of conviction. It is contended that P. W. 2, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 were declared hostile and P. W. 5 Mili claims to be the eye-witness, but, according to the prosecution case as setforth in the F. I. R. both the daughters were not present in the house and after getting information P. W. 1 came back home with his daughters. Mr. Safiullah submits that P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 did not see the occurrence and there is no eye-witness in this case.