SHRIDHAR RUIDAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1993 (S.T. No.20 of 1995) on 20.12.1996.

(2.) The miniaturised version of the Prosecution is that on 27.10.1991, Sunday, at about 1.00 p.m. finding that his third daughter Jayanti Ruidas, aged about ten years, who went to Saraika pond for washing clothes at about 9.00 a.m., did not yet turn up, the defacto complainant Sudhakar Ruidas (P.W, 1) went to the said pond in search of her but could not find her. He informed the matter to his neighbourers. Arun Ruidas (P.W. 3) informed him that he saw Jayanti to wash clothes at the said pond and a number of drenched currency notes kept on the grass near the bank of pond for drying up, and on his query Jayanti reported that at the time of washing clothes, those currency notes kept in the pocket of shirt became, drenched, for which she kept those notes there for drying up in sun, that at that time accused Sridhar Ruidas came there, enquired from Jayanti as to the reason for keeping the said currency notes there and asking her to take back the money from him from his house, he went away towards his house, that Jayanti after washing clothes and keeping the same in the basket entered into the house of Sridhar, and he left for grazing goats in the , field. On receipt of this information, complainant after vigorous search found Sridhar, enquired from him the whereabouts of Jayanti and asked him to show his room, but he informed that he would show his room after return from collecting his wages. As he did not turn up, it gave rise to a suspicion and he being accompanied by his neighbourers and father of Sridhar went to the house of Sridhar on the bank of pond and found the same under lock and key. The members of the family of Sridhar were not there. The neighbourers on breaking open the padlock entered into the room with the complainant and father of Sridhar at about 7.00 p.m. and found with the help of hajack light Jayanti lying dead with ligature mark around her neck, saliva coming out of nose and mouth, the basket containing washed clothes near her head and goldnose-.ring and silver ear-rings were not in her person. Accused Sridhar, who was unsuccessfully searched at different places, committed murder of Jayanti by strangulation and misappropriated the money and ornaments. Hence, the accused was charged under sections 302/379/411 IPC.

(3.) The defence case, as suggested to PWs., as deposed by D.Ws and as contended by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr PC, is that as he had a difference of opinion with the party-men of CPI(M), he left the village for his in-law's house at Kumardi and stays there. He never resided at the P.O. Jayanti died of suffocation due to sudden fall in the pond at tlte time of washing. Defacto complainant Sudhakar himself kept her dead body in the house of the accused taking advantage of his absence on that date. He has been falsely implicated in this case.