LAWS(CAL)-1992-4-15

LAL MOHAN MAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On April 30, 1992
LAL MOHAN MAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Lalmohan Man has been convicted under section 302, I.P.C. and sentence: to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. He has also been convicted under section 498A, I.P.C. along with his mother Chinu Man, the other appellant, and each of P.Ws. 1. sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant Lal Mohan was to run concurrently. This appeal directed against the aforesaid orders of conviction and sentences arises under the circumstances stated below.

(2.) On 18th July, 1985, on receipt of some information about the illness of his sister Kalyani, Ajoy, P.Ws. 1, rushed to the quarters of the appellant Lalmohan at Dhubulia within Kotwali Police Station and found Kalyani lying dead on the floor after the Police unlocked the door. Samarendra Bhattacharya, A.S.I. of Police. P.Ws. 12, then attached to Dhubulia Police Outpost reached the spot on receipt of some information, held inquest on the dead body of Kalyani in presence of witnesses, and sent it to Saktinagar Hospital for postmortem examination under the escort of N.V.F. Nil Ratan Biswas. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Rabindra Nath Ghosh, P.W. 8 on 19.7.1985. Ajoy P.Ws. 1, filed a written complaint at Dhubulia Police Outpost and pursuant to the said complaint, Makhan Lal Sahi, P.Ws. 10, then attached to the Police Outpost as S.I. of Police, took up the investigation of the case after endorsement by the O.C. Kotwali Police Station. The investigation ended in a charge-sheet, a trial and conviction and sentence of these two appellants in the manner stated above.

(3.) The orders of conviction and sentence appealed against have been assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellants mainly on five grounds and these are: