(1.) It is a sad tale we have here - Sandhya Ruj, a girl of tender age, met her death ultimately as a result of some injuries caused by throwing of acid. Two other persons - the younger brother and the younger sister of Sandhya Ruj - were also said to have been injured by the said acid throwing.
(2.) On 24-4-84, Sandhya Ruj, Nimai Ruj and Alo Ruj were sleeping in the western room of the house belonging to PW-1, Kshirode Gopal Ruj. Sandhya was the daughter of PW-1, Kshirode Gopal, and PW-3, Sushama Ruj. On that date, in the night, while the three were sleeping, suddenly an alarm was raised by the three children of Sushama that they were having burning sensation. They all came upon the verandah. Sushama herself was sleeping that night on the verandah. PW-1, Sushama s husband had been outside to see a picture. Before PW-1 came back home, Sandhya and others were taken to the hospital. After PW-1 came back, PW-3 narrated the incident to him. PW-1 went to the hospital at first and then to the P.S. Sandhya had suffered burning injuries and she could not speak well for first 2/3 days. From the hospital, PW-1 went to the P.S. and there he delivered an FIR, written by Biswanath, a neighbour. Police took up the investigation of the case. After about four days, the prosecution alleges, Sandhya made some statement to the mother and uncle, implicating the accused. On 24-4-84, the 1.0. got information about the name of the accused from Sandhya Ruj at 10.30 A.M. Sandhya ultimately died on 15-5-84 at the hospital.
(3.) The accused, Bhombal Roy Kartick, faced trial on two charges: on the charge under Section 304 of the IPC for causing the death of Sandhya the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; and also under Section 307 of the IPC for attempting to cause death of Ale Ruj and Nimai Ruj. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC for causing the death of Sandhya. He, however, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. The accused, Bhombal, has preferred this appeal from jail. Mr. Subrata Ghosh and Mr. Anami Sikdar appear for the Appellant. Mr. Arun Mukherjee has appeared for the State. Mr. Ghosh has contended that there is no legal evidence against the accused appellant. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the Court has to look into the probabilities of the case having regard to the surrounding circumstances.