STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. HARI RAMALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore in ST No. VIII of February, 1996 on 28-1-97.

(2.) The miniaturised version of the prosecution is that on 21-8-94 at about 15.45 hrs. on receipt of an information from the SDPO, Haldia regarding the death of Sunita Ramalu (35 years), wife of Sri Hari Ramalu, IAS, Chief Executive Officer, Haldia Development Authority, P.S. Durgachak, District Midnapore, who used to stay at his residential bungalow at Basudevpur, P.S. Durgachak with his wife & two minor daughters the eldest being Niki, aged about 7 years, the de facto complainant S.I. Kamal Bairagya had been there within ten minutes, found the dead body of Sunita in the first floor southwest room lying on its back with some marks of injuries, on a cot. On receipt of a written information about unnatural death of Mem-sahib from one Vivekananda Roy, cook of the said bungalow, on the same date, the same was forwarded to the police station for starting an U.D. case. Inquest over the dead body was held by an Executive Magistrate who noticed blood coming out from nostrils and mouth, ecchymosis on the chest beneath the right shoulder, right lower jaw and near the right chin. On query by the Executive Magistrate, Hari Ramalu informed that his wife had an accidental fall in the attached bathroom at the dawn on 21-8-94. The dead body was sent for P. M. Examination. The Autopsy Surgeon found six external and internel injuries viz. head injury, major injury of liver, one haematoma on the right broad ligament and two other superficial abraded wounds over face all injuries being confined to the right side of the body and were anti-mortem in nature which might have been inflicted following hit with some hard and blunt objects over the areas concerned. Injury Nos. 5 and 6 are generally possible following direct hit with sufficient pressure over the area. The injury to the liver is sufficient to cause death within a very short time. As the nature of death was not clear from the above opinion, a few queries were made to ascertain whether the death was homicidal in nature and the reply indicated that the said injuries were not possible by a single fall in the bathroom.

(3.) During investigation it was revealed that relation between the accused Hari Ramalu and his wife was not good. On 20-8-94 (Saturday) at about 20 : 30 hrs. the accused took dinner with his wife and two daughters being served by the cook Bibek Roy. Both accused and the victim Sunita picked up quarrel over some issues and the accused gave several kicks and pressure on the abdomen of his wife, for which she sustained several internal and external injuries including rupture of liver and a large haematoma on the broad ligament extended up to uterus. Groaning sound was heard from the bungalow on the night of occurrence and the incident took place between 20.30 hrs. on 20-8-94 and 6/6.30 hrs. on 21-8-94. The accused was all along present with the members of his family at his bungalow which is well protected and guarded round the clock by the watchmen of P.H.E. On the next morning at about 11.00 hrs. the maidservant Aloka Sahu came to the bungalow for normal daily work and came to know from Niki that her mother had expired, followed by her seeing the dead body on its back on the cot in the bed room and asking the accused about the cause of death, but the accused kept quite. Similarly, at about 11 ;45 hrs. while Mangal Singh, driver of the office car of the accused, on coming to learn about the death of Sunita from Niki asked the accused about the cause of death, the latter did not make any response. The accused did not make any hue and cry at the time of incident nor made any attempt to seek medical aid for his wife though the bungalow's telephone was in order. The accused after committing murder of his wife gave a concocted story of accidental fall of his wife in the bathroom which was ruled out by the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon. He deliberately concealed the evidence of murder and avoided police arrest from the morning of 28-8-94 i.e. just after registering the case of murder against him. Hence, he was charged u/Ss. 302/201, IPC.