MAHADEV BISWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON April 10, 2011 one Mahadev Biswas the appellant above named went to the Havelock police station and informed the police personnel present there, he committed murder of his wife Smti Jhunu Biswas in the intervening night of April, 9 and April 10, 2011. He subsequently pleaded ''not guilty ''. He was charged with the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence his trial. EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION LED BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSION

(2.) THE prosecution examined 16 witnesses that would include the Doctor who conducted the post -mortem and also the police personnel involved in the investigation. PW -1 Shri S. Mohan PW -1 the Sub Inspector of police deposed, he was in his quarter when Head Moharir of the police station M.S. Yadav called him. He found Mahadev Biswas present. He was told, last night he had quarrelled with his wife and out of the rage and instigation he strangulated his wife, possibly she died. He along with the other police personnel went to the place of occurrence. On entering the room he saw the victim lying on the floor and one child being 5 to 6 years old was sleeping beside her. He also found froth coming out of the mouth of the victim. There was imprint of finger on her neck. He informed the Station House officer who directed him to post sentries. After coming back, he lodged FIR in the police station. In cross examination, he admitted not having informed any Doctor. He did not make any arrangement for taking the body of the victim to the hospital. Between the police station and the place of occurrence PHC was situated. He denied the suggestion, no sign of strangulation was present or any blood was oozing out from the nostrils of the victim. PW -2 Smti. Sabita Roy

(3.) THE witness was the Pradhan. He got the phone call from police station. He visited the spot and found the dead body. He witnessed the inquest and signed the inquest report. He contacted the father of the victim. The dead body was handed over to the brother of the accused on the next date. He put his signature on exhibit 3/1 during handing over. Wearing apparels of victim were seized. He identified the signature on the seizure memo. He admitted, the couple was known to him. Their relationship was not cordial. They visited panchayat number of times. She wanted to take her husband to mainland but the husband refused on the ground that he had not enough money. During cross examination, the witness admitted, he did not have any proof of visit of the couple at the panchayat. He also admitted, he did not make any statement to the police on the victim 's insistence to go back to mainland along with husband. He had police case pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He was the first private individual to see the dead body. The distance between his house and the place of occurrence was 150 meters. He denied the suggestion, he did not visit the place of occurrence or the victim had any mark of strangulation. PW -4 K. Asaitambi PW -4 was a Sweeper. He assisted the doctor in postmortem. He identified his signature on the seizure list. PW -5 Shri M.Bhupathy Rao: - PW -5 was a business man. He was witness to the seizure conducted by police at the hospital. PW -6 Shri. Swapan Majhi: -