MOHAN HANSDA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Uttar Dinajpur for offences punishable under Sections 448, 326, 307, 436 and 302 of the I.P.C. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the I.P.C. or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. He has also been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. A similar sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 302 of the I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18th August, 2001 the complainant PW 5 heard cries from the house of Musai @ Chhoto Hembram. He ran to the house and found that his brother Musai, his wife Malati and their three daughters were burnt and were seriously injured. Several villagers gathered there and the victims were rushed to the Kaliaganj Hospital. On the advice of the Doctor present there, the injured were admitted to Raiganj Hospital. One of the daughters of Musai died in the hospital, while Musai and his wife and two children were admitted in the hospital for treatment. According to the prosecution someone entered the house of Musai at about 12.30 a.m., poured some cold fluid on the victims who saw that the appellant had set them ablaze and then fled away. The case of the prosecution is that Mohan Hansda, the appellant herein, had acted in this manner because his expression of love for Malati was spurned by her. Musai who sustained 70 per cent burn injuries survived and has been examined as one of the witnesses for the prosecution. Malati and their 3 children succumbed to the burn injuries.

(3.) The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant. PW 1 is the mother of Malati. She has stated that her daughter told her about the incident in the hospital. In the crossexamination she has stated that on seeing the condition of her daughter and grand-daughters she had become unconscious and that she was not aware of what happened in the hospital thereafter. She has admitted that it was only after returning from the hospital that she gathered the details of the incident from the villagers. She did not know personally the manner in which the accident occurred.