DHELU DEBSHARMA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 6/1997 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC, under Section 302/34 IPC, under Section 302/107 IPC and under Section 302/120B IPC and sentencing him thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is as follows; On March 23, 1988 at about 7 hours in the morning the son of the complainant Mahasin Ali found a dead body of an unknown female lying at Mahatur Mouza on the northern bank of the ?bill? with throat cut injury. When a FIR was lodged with the local police station which gave rise to Kushmandi Police Station Case No. 6 dated March 23, 1988 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation of the said case the dead body was identified as to be of one Kalo Barmani of Mouza Kulator. When the villagers suspected the appellant?s involvement in the case as he was closely mixing with her and when the appellant was questioned by them he allegedly in presence of the villagers admitted that after the death of her husband he picked up an illicit relationship and intimacy with Kalo Barmani. It is the further case of the prosecution that due to such relation the deceased conceived and gave birth to a child named Kuranu and as the deceased was repeatedly insisting the appellant to admit his paternity, the appellant took out the deceased and her son Kuranu aged about 1? year on the pretext of purchasing some dress materials from Patirajhaat and during dark with the help of absconding accused Bhupen Sarkar first raped her and then killed both the deceased Kalo Barmani and her son.

(3.) DURING the trial the prosecution examined total 14 witnesses. Out of the said witnesses P.W. 1 Hassan Ali is the informant of the case and it appears from his evidence after discovery of the dead body of the victim Kalo Barmani, he informed the police and lodged the report, besides that nothing transpires from his evidence as regards to the incident of murder. The P.W. 2 Dhan Mhamad and P.W. 3 Hafizur Rahaman are the witnesses of inquest over the dead body of deceased Kalo Barmani. The P.W. 4 Chandri Barman is the uncle of the deceased Kalo Barmani. According to him after the death of the husband of Kalo Barmani the appellant regularly visited her and they developed an illicit relation and due to such relation the deceased gave birth to a child named Kuranu. The witness admitted that he had not disclosed to the police that Kalo gave birth to a child by Dhelu. The P.W. 5 Paresh Ch. Roy and P.W. 6 Pasiruddin both turned hostile during trial. The P.W. 7 Sasthi Das is a witness who identified the dead body as that of Kalo Barmani to the police by seeing the photographs of the deceased. So far as the P.W. 8 Binoy Barman is concerned, according to him the date from when Kalo Barmani was found missing in the morning she came to him and took a loan of Rs. 4/- and told him that being accompanied by the appellant she would go to haat for purchasing her saries and garments for her child. He also deposed about the intimacy developed between the appellant and the deceased after the death of her husband. The P.W. 9 Suben Deb Sharma only deposed about the fact that he was told by the Kalo Barmani that after the death of her husband that Dhelu has developed an affair with her and her son Kuranu was begotten by the accused. This witness was challenged as to the fact that he did not disclose to the police as to what the deceased told him. The P.W. 10 Balai Chandra Roy is the only witness, who stated that on 20.04.88, a Salish was held in their village over the issue of murder of Kalo Barmani. In the said salish, in presence of other villagers the appellant admitted his guilt for committing the murder of deceased Kalo Barmani and her son. The witness further claimed that the other villagers, viz. Paresh, Binoy, Chandri and others, while during the trial Paresh, P.W. 5 was declared hostile and both the P.W. 4 Chandri Barman and P.W. 8 Binoy Barman were completely silent about any confession made by the appellant admitting that he killed the deceased Kalo Barmani.