APCHAR ALI MOLLA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial No.10(8) of 1995 sentencing thereby the appellant to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months under Section 302 I. P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 6.2.1988 at about 10.30 p.m. while the informant and his daughter Bouni Bibi were having gossip after dinner, then suddenly the informant's son-in-law Apchar Ali Molla struck informant's daughter on the neck with a chopper. When the informant tried to resist, the accused was about to strike him as well and while fleeing away the accused stated that the informant would not have to send his daughter to the house of the accused anymore. THE daughter of the informant died instantaneously. It has been alleged in the FIR that there was ill-relation between the informant's daughter and the accused for quite sometime past. For this reason the informant's daughter stayed in his house for the last fifteen days prior to the incident. Informant's daughter was not willing to go to her matrimonial home. Prior to the date of incident the accused came to the house of the informant in the evening on two successive days and quarrelled with the daughter of the informant. But, on the date of incident i.e. 6.2.1988 at night he suddenly came and caused her death. After the receipt of the complaint, the Bhangore P. S. Case No.3 dated 6.2.1988 was started. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted. THE charge was framed under Section 302 I. P.C. to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) MR. Ganguly appearing on behalf of the State submits that there was discord in the matrimonial life of accused and the informant's daughter and the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased at the earliest point of time. MR. Ganguly contends that there was no scope of fabrication. MR. Ganguly submits that P.W.1 has stated as to the infliction of assault by the accused. It is contended that in the inquest report also there was mention of infliction of assault by the accused. It is contended that there is no evidence to show that prior to the date of incident the relation between the deceased and the accused was cordial. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that the husband ever came to take back his wife. MR. Ganguly contends that so far as the evidence of hostile witness is concerned, it would appear from his evidence before being declared hostile that the name of the accused as assailant was stated. MR. Ganguly contends that accused was absconding and he surrendered in Court seven months after the incident. MR. Ganguly submits that the injury was inflicted on the neck which was the vital part of the body and it was sufficient to cause death. MR. Ganguly contends that when there is eyewitness, the question of motive cannot arise. MR. Ganguly contends that as per evidence of P.W. 1 the accused assaulted the daughter of the informant 2/3 times and this finds corroboration from the medical evidence. MR. Ganguly has referred to and cited the decisions in [Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, 2010 2 SCC(Cri) 711; Raj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 2 SCC(CRI) 538].