PURNACHANDRA MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against judgment and order dtd. 29/3/2014 and 31/3/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in Sessions Case No. 56(3)/2009 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 35(04)/2013 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 and to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more and also sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of 10,000 to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more. All the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that appellant was the private tutor of Mousumi, a 16 year old girl. He gave indecent proposal to her. Mousumi informed to her mother. Appellant threatened Mousumi with dire consequences. On 26/12/2008 at 6.30 a.m. Mousumi was proceeding with her father Durgapada Bera (PW 2) to Baroj. On the way appellant restrained them. He dragged Mousumi away and struck her with a hansua like Katari. When Durgapada protested he was assaulted. They fell down at the spot with bleeding injuries. Appellant fled from the spot with the weapon. Local people came to the spot. They shifted Mousumi and her father Durgapada to Erasal hospital where they were treated. Thereafter Mousumi was shifted to Tamluk hospital. As her condition was serious she was shifted to NRS hospital where she expired on the next date. In the meantime Sudhir Chandra Bera (PW 1), grandfather of the Mousumi lodged written complaint resulting in Chandipur Police Station Case No. 132 dtd. 26/12/2008 under Ss. 341/354/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. After the death of Mousumi, Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. During investigation investigating officer (PW 31) arrested the appellant. On his showing weapon of offence i.e. katari was recovered. Charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed under Ss. 341/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 31 witnesses were examined. On an analysis of the evidence on record, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted the appellant and sentenced him.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits prosecution has not been able to prove the motive to commit the crime. Apart from relations no witness deposed that the appellant had given indecent proposal and had threatened Mousumi. PW 2 (Durgapada Bera) is the sole eye-witness. He stated that the appellant assaulted him and his daughter with a katari. Medical officers i.e. PWs 26, 28 and 30 who treated Mousumi found lacerated wounds and depressed fracture. They opined that fracture was caused due to blunt substance. Hence, medical evidence does not support the ocular version of assault by a sharp cutting weapon i.e. katari. Prosecution case suffers from inconsistencies and is liable to be rejected. He prays for acquittal.