TAPAN SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Sessions case No. 7 of April, 1992 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 2 of September, 1993 sentencing each of the appellants to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to under go R.I. for two years. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Bablu Kumar Dutta lodged complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Khatra P.S. alleging that on 21st Phalgun, 1397 B.S. his sister Dipu Dutta was married with Swarup Sarkar of Bogabaid. Arup Sarkar is the elder brother of Swarup and Binapani is the wife of Arup. After marriage, Arup Sarkar and his wife Binapani Sarkar started committing torture upon Dipu. In absence of Swarup, the other inmates of her husband's family used to express that as a result of Swarup's marriage with Dipu the family would be enlarged and the properties would gradually be reduced. Dipu gave birth to a female baby. After the birth of the child, the elder brother of Dipu's husband and his wife used to tell that the hard earned money of the family would have to be spent for the said baby. They also expressed that birth of the child was meant for destruction for the property. On 06.8.1990 at about 1.30 hours at night Bidyut Sarkar, the cousin of Swarup, came to the house of the informant and stated that on 05.08.1990 between 6.00 and 6.30 p.m. Dipu and her mother-in-law went to ease themselves out side the house by keeping the baby under a mosquito net at the covered varandah of their house. At that time Binapani, the wife of Arup, was baking bread. One hour thereafter Dipu and her mother-in-law came back home and found that the baby was not there. They found that the iron chain of the gate of compound was also unfastened. On being asked Binapani could not give satisfactory answer. In course of search for the child, Tapan the younger brother of Arup suddenly shouted and informed that the baby was floating in the water inside the well. The complaint was lodged against Binapani Sarkar, her husband Arup Sarkar and Tapan Sarkar, the brother of Arup Sarkar alleging that they caused the death of the child by throwing her in the well.

(2.) After receipt of the complaint, Khatra P.S. case No. 37 of 1990 dated 06.8.1990 was started. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted. The charges were framed under section 498A and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is no direct evidence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is contended that the chain of evidence is not complete and, therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons. Mr. Biswas contends that the evidence adduced by the prosecution docs not suggest that in all probabilities the accused persons were the perpetrators of the crime.