SRI PRAHLLAD DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22nd August, & 23rd August, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura, in Sessions Case No. 5(1) of 1998 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 2(8) of 2001 by which the accused Prahallad Dutta, wife Phelarani Dutta and his daughter Mamoni Dutta were convicted of an offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court by the judgment dated 23rd August 2002 held that Tilottmma a young woman aged about 22 years was killed by her parents namely Prahallad and Phelarani aided and assisted by the younger daughter Mamoni. The learned Trial Court awarded life imprisonment to each of the convicts under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate punishment was, however, awarded with respect to the alleged offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution briefly stated is as follows: On 23rd December, 1994 the victim Tilotomma was assaulted black and blue by her parents. She thereafter was not seen alive by the village Rs. The Prodhan enquired of the accused Prahalad as regards whereabouts of his daughter Tilotomma to which he gave various sorts of answers which made the villagers suspicious. On 2nd January, 1995, the villagers led by the Prodhan allegedly enquired of the accused Prahallad about the whereabouts of his daughter Tilotomma. It is alleged that the accused Prahallad confessed that he along with his wife Phelarani and the daughter Mamoni had killed her and buried her deadbody in one of the rooms of his dwelling house. A written complaint proved by the P.W.2 was lodged by the P.W. 1, the Prodhan. Police thereafter is alleged to have been activated. The body was recovered. Inquest was held. All the accused persons were arrested, subsequently charged and convicted. It is against this conviction that the present appeal has been filed by the father, the mother and their daughter.

(3.) Mr. Dandapat, learned Advocate, appearing in support of this appeal emphatically submitted that there is no evidence, worth the name on the record, on the basis of which the learned Trial Court could have returned a verdict of conviction. He submitted that the learned Trial Court was over jealous in accepting the fanciful theory propounded by the prosecution, although, there was no evidence before him. Prosecution according to him had even failed to probabilise its case far less proving the same beyond any reasonable doubt.