SUKUR AU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against an order of conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2nd Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas on 24.8.1985 in sessions Trial No. 5(3)85. The prosecution case inter alia is to the effect that the appellant killed his wife by way of strangulation, pressing her neck with a shovel which he did, according to the extra judicial confession made by the accused because of an a Tand made by his father. The prosecution case is to the effect that, as and when the accused was married to Saburjan, the younger sister of P.W. 1, Jalal Mondal, there was a promise to pay Rs. 600/- in cash, a wristwatch and a bi-cycle to the bridegroom but the promised dowry was not paid which prompted the groom's father ultimately to two allow her to reside in her husband's house till the articles along with cash were handed over to them. Rupjan, the mother of Sukur Ali however, came to the house of P.W. 1 and took the daughter-in-law to their house but ultimately a few days thereafter on the 29th of Shravan 1390 B.S. corresponding to 9th of August, 1983 at about 11.30 p.m., P.W. I, Jatal Mondal on getting some information having visited the house of his brother-in-law, the appellant, found his sister lying dead on the verandah of the house while his brother-in-law the present appellant was shouting allegedly on the pressure of some pains in his stomach. P.W. 1 sent his brother, Madar, to a village quack Dr. Abdus Sattar (P.W. 2) and the said doctor on arrival and. on examination confirmed that Saburjan was dead. He asked Sukur Ali, the appellant as to how his wife died to which Sukur Ali told him that she died by hanging. The doctor asked him as to how he had brought her down and then the accused said that he killed his wife by pressing her on the neck. When he was asked as to how he has pressed her, he replied that he pressed her with a shovel of iron. On being asked as to the reason why he had killed his wife, he told that his father instructed him to kill her as the bride was not good and dues have not been satisfied. He even stated that his father pressed her down over the bedding of their bed room and he killed his wife by pressing a shovel on her neck and she had not been able to make any noise. His father asked them to lit fire on the cloth and hairs of his wife and to burn her down and his father sprinkled kerosene oil himself on the cloth and hairs and lit the fire. But as cloth and hairs were set fire to, his mother hurriedly came and put off the same by sprinkling water. P.W. 1 and neighboursT who assembled over there, entered the room of his sister and actually found on shovel of iron lying by the side of her pillow. The floor of the room was drenched with water. They even found the-edge of her saree and hairs of her head lightly burnt. P.W. 1 alongwith P.W. 2, Abdus Sattar, Abbas Ali Mondal (P.W. 11), Abdul Khalek (P.W. 4) and Jamal started for the Thana and on the way at Abalsiddhi crossing which was 516 miles away from their village Maricha, they saw a police jeep and told the police officer about the incident. A written complaint was handed over to the officer. P.W. 14, A.S.I. Sailendra Nath Biswas. The police party then came over to the village Maricha and entered inside the house of the appellant where the dead body was found lying on the Verandah. On receipt of the written complaint from A.S.I. Sailendra Nath Biswas (P.W. 14), A.S.I. Shib Das Bhattacharjee (P.W. 17) registered Amdanga P.S. case No.4 date 10.8.1983 at 6.35 hours, P.W. 18, sub Inspector of Police, Ashim Samaddar found many men assembled there at the house of the appellant. He held an inquest over the dead body. He interrogated the inmates of the house including the appellant and his father, seized a shovel and some portion of burnt hair and some pieces of broken choories under a seizure list prepared in presence of P.W. 2, Abdus Sattar, P.W.1, Jalal Mondal. The burnt hair of the deceased was also seized. The appellant and his father were arrested and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The post mortem report having revealed the fracture of the hyoid bone and multiple abrasion marks and the cause of the death in the opinion of the post mortem doctor having been fixed as asphyxia as a result of strangulation, the police ultimately submitted a charge-sheet against the accused appellant and his father, Ombur Ali under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and also under section 201 Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty. The defence inter alia was that they were not guilty of the charge and that the incident did not happen in the manner as alleged or at all. There was no extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant Sukur Ali and that the dead body of Saburjan Bibi was discovered from the garden of one Ramjan, contiguous to the appellants house and the members of the family could not say as to how she died.

(2.) At the trial eighteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge on shifting of the entire evidence on record came to a finding that the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the dead body of Saburjan Bibi was found lying in the verandah of the house of her husband and father-in-law and even though the post mortem doctor failed to disclose the hour or the exact time of her death he came to a clear finding that Saburjan Bibi died at the house of her husband and father-in-law at about 11 or 11.30 p.m. on the night of 9th August, 1983 and it was a case of unnatural death. Even though no other witness from the family of the complainant was examined besides P.W. 1, he believed his testimony, where from the motive for the murder stood proved and it being a case of circumstantial evidence where no direct evidence as to the murder was available, the entire surrounding circumstances did lead to the only inference that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime of murder which finding was duly supported by his extra-judicial confession as testified to by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The nature of the injury as was manifest enough from the extra-judicial confessional statement also stood corroborated by the post mortem doctor, P.W. 12. Even though he found the complicity of the father of the appellant Ombur Ali not having been sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt, since it was not safe to convict him merely on the basis of the confessional statement of a coaccused person namely, hi son, and the learned Trial Judge found the evidence as regards offence under section 201 Indian Penal Code not being sufficiently convincing, still the learned Trial Judge had no hesitation to convict the appellant of the substantive charge under section 302 Indian Penal Code for murder so as to sentence him to imprisonment for life as stated above.