SHANKAR BHIM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 6/12/2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 01(12)2017 wherein the learned trial Court was pleased to convict the appellants under Sec. 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as follows:

(2.) The genesis of the case relates to Nandakumar police station case no. 13 dtd. 26/3/2016 under Ss. 341/447/323/354/376/511/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR was registered pursuant to an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being filed by Madhumita Ghora (PW1). The sum and substance of the allegations were to the effect that on 14/12/16 at about 10.00 am when the informant's husband was not at home the accused persons namely, Shankar Bhim, Chandan Bhim, Putul Bhim and Shilu Bhim entered in the betel garden for damaging it. On seeing such conduct the informant protested when Shankar and Chandan Bhim attacked her by abusing filthy languages and forcefully pushed her on the ground. It has been alleged that the accused persons took off her wearing apparels by tying her mouth and pressed her breasts in lustful condition for tempting her. At this stage the informant un-tied the cover of her mouth and started shouting when the witness Pratima Ghora, Sukumar Ghora and Meghnad Ghora came to her rescue. However, the accused persons slapped, kicked, punched and pressed her neck in order to kill her. The accused persons also snatched away the gold pala valuing Rs.8,000.00. The informant was treated at Khejurbera B.P.H.C. and lodged a General Diary with the Nandakumar Police Station but the police authorities did not take any action. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Nandakumar Police Station case no. 13 dtd. 26/3/2016 was registered for investigation and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sec. 341/447/323/354/376/511/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sec. 323/354/376/511/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 6 witnesses which included PW1, Madhumita Ghora, informant; PW2 Meghnath Ghora, husband of PW1; PW3 Kanchani Ghora, sister-in-law of PW1; PW4, Sukumar Ghora, relation of PW1; PW5, Pratima Ghora, sister-in-law of PW1 and PW6, S.I. Samar Mishra, Investigating Officer of the case.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 6 documents which included Ext.1, signature in the written complaint; Ext.2, seizure list; Ext.3, statement of the victim under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C.; Ext.4, Formal FIR; Ext.5, rough sketch map with index and Ext.6 series, three injury reports. PW1 in her examination-in-chief deposed that she filed the complaint in Court. The same was prepared after she narrated the facts to her advocate and after understanding the contents of the same she signed it. She identified all the accused persons namely, Shankar Bhim, Chandan Bhim, Putul Bhim and Shilu Bhim and stated that they are her brother-in-law and their wives. She narrated that the incident took place in the month of February at about 10.00 am and there was dispute regarding landed property amongst her husband and his brothers and with the accused persons. On the relevant date the accused persons entered their betel garden in order to destroy it and when she raised objection and asked them to go away Chandan Bhim and Shankar Bhim tried to outrage her modesty and started quarrel with her. They also assaulted her on different parts of her body and during the scuffle she lost her 'pala' valued at Rs.8,000.00 which was snatched away. She received injury at her belly and chest and she was treated at Khejurberia Hospital. She further deposed that she gave her garments to the police authorities who seized the same and further stated that her blouse was torn at the time of assault. She also identified her signature in the statement under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her cross-examination she stated that her family is involved in a land dispute with the accused persons, to that effect civil cases are pending between the parties.