SURESH BAURI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed from the order of conviction and sentence dated January 31, 2008 and February 2, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2007 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 203 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, rigorous imprisonment for five years. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl and the accused appellant had been married for a year. Torture both mental and physical was inflicted on her. On the morning of 7th July, 2007, the Chowkidar of the police station informed the brother of the victim girl that she had been murdered by Suresh, the accused/appellant. The defacto-complainant immediately left for the PO and found that the victim girl was lying dead with bleeding injuries on a "Khatia" (cot) placed on the verandah of the room. There was sign of injury on the neck, back and backside of the neck. The accused appellant admitted that he had murdered his wife with axe on 6th July, 2007 in the afternoon.

(2.) Based on the aforesaid, an F.I.R. was filed. A written complaint was handed over to the Officer In-charge of Kotshila Police Station, which was received at 11.15 hrs., and the same was forwarded thereafter to the duty officer at 12-05 hrs. Based on the said written complaint Kotshila Police Station Case No. 22/07 dated 07.07.2007 was started under Section 498A and 302 IPC. On completion of the investigation a chargesheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Purulia, who transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Purulia who framed the charge under Ss. 498A and 302 IPC. The said charge was read out and explained to the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. At the trial as many as 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Documentary evidence was also relied on. The accused appellant was also examined under Section 313 CrPC, but, no evidence was adduced by the defence. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court passed the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC but acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The case of the accused appellant is that the date of incident is 6th July, 2007 in the afternoon as mentioned by the defacto-complainant (P.W. 1) who was informed about the incident by the Chowkidar of the Pindrajora Police Station, who has not been examined. In fact, P.W.12, (IO) has also stated that he went to the PO after receiving a telephonic information. Who gave such telephonic information is also not known. P.W.4 has also stated that he informed the police but in his cross-examination he has categorically stated that he went to the house of the accused appellant on the fated night after getting information of death. The name of the informer however is not known. In the instant case, therefore, it has not been possible to ascertain the name of the person who informed P.W.4, the Chowkidar of the P.S. and the I.O, of the said incident, and this is a link which has been de-linked in this case of circumstantial evidence. The time of receipt of information by the police is also not known. There is mention of two G.D. Entry. In the formal F.I.R. G.D.E. 195 dated 07.07.2007 at 12-05 hrs. finds mention. What emerges from the evidence of I.O., (P.W.12) is that G.D.E. 189 was also recorded on 07.07.2007. This G.D. Entry was not produced by the prosecution and does not match the G.D. Entry mentioned in the F.I.R. In the formal F.I.R. the date of occurrence was also not mentioned, although the date has been mentioned in the written complaint. From the sketch map it will appear that the PO was surrounded by house wherein people resided. None of the neighbours have been examined. Starting of the case at 12.05 hrs. is also doubted specially when F.I.R. was received at 11-45 hrs. P.W.1, the brother of the victim girl found the accused appellant present at the PO.