HIMANSHU MISTRI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.1.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 21(9) of 1995 and Sessions Trial No. 1(2) of 1996 whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- i/d to suffer R.I. for another two years. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(2.) In short, the prosecution case is that the accused along with the deceased Tulshi and a female child aged about 2-1/2 years took possession in respect of one room in the house of the P.W.4 and at that time the accused disclosed that deceased Tulshi was his wife. This induction of the accused and the deceased in the said room took place 15/20 days prior to the incident and the accused and Tulshi along with the said child continued to live together in the said room. On 29.3.90, the landlady Anamika Chakraborty woke up in the early morning and found that the minor child of the deceased was crying in the varanda of the tenanted room of the accused. When P.W.4 enquired about the reason, she disclosed that her mother was killed. At first the landlady did not take it seriously. But out of curiosity she entered the room and found that Tulshi was lying on the bed in overturned condition and in a pool of blood. She raised an alarm and the P.W.5 and other tenants of the said house and also some local people came there. At that time they did not find the accused present in the said room. A small iron rod which was stained with blood was found lying by the side of the deceased. The P.W.4 Anamika Chakraborty lodged a written complaint in the Kalyani Police Station. On the basis of that, a case under Section 302, I.P.C. was started against the accused. The case was investigated and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused as a prima facie case under Section 302, I.P.C. was made out. As the accused could not be apprehended during of investigation, so charge-sheet was submitted against him showing him as absconder. During trial charge under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the accused and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in all has examined 14 witnesses to prove the charge against the accused. Defence has not examined any witness. Defence case as made out in the cross-examination, is that of complete denial and that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused also has taken a plea that the victim was no way connected with him and he never stayed in the room in question as a tenant along with the deceased under the P.W.4 and P.W.6.

(3.) We have already pointed out that the allegation against the accused that he had committed murder of deceased Tulshi and as such according to the prosecution he is liable to be sentenced under Section 302, I.P.C. So, in order to prove this charge, prosecution is bound to show that it was the accused only who was responsible for the death of the deceased Tulshi. Let us now see how far the prosecution has been able to prove that. The first thing which the prosecution in this case is bound to prove, is that the deceased Tulshi was murdered. In order to prove this fact the prosecution has adduced the evidence of the witnesses i.e. the landlord and his wife as well as some other tenants and neighbours. All of them clearly stated in their evidence that they found Tulshi lying dead in the room in question with serious injuries on her person. The statements of these witnesses regarding the death of Tulshi, who is the deceased of this case, cannot be disbelieved under any stretch of imagination. They have clearly stated that they found injuries on the body of the deceased and she was lying in a pool of blood. Naturally there is no other alternative but to believe the prosecution case that Tulshi was murdered. We fully agree with the view of the learned Court below that the death of Tulshi took place not by any friendly hand but she died as she was murdered by someone. Moreover the evidence of the witnesses has been ably corroborated by the post mortem report which has been marked Ext. 5 in connection with this case. If we look into the said Ext. 5 then it will appear that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to obstruction of air way, which is ante-mortem in nature. The autopsy surgeon who conducted the post mortem examination, noted the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased :-