SUKHCHAND MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the order of conviction and sentence dated 17th May, 2006 and 18th May, 2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. XIV/August/04 whereby and whereunder the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused appellant on 28th April, 2004 came to his house and found the victim girl washing utensils. He asked the victim girl to give him lunch and the said request went unheeded. In fact, when the victim girl virtually denied to serve him lunch, he then hit her head with a brick as a result of which she fell in the tank. He went out of the house and on return he found the dead body of the victim girl floating in the tank. He then took her out from the tank water and laid her on the varandah. She had already died and in the night he placed the dead body of the victim girl inside the septic tank and put lid thereon. Subsequent thereto he consumed poison and was removed to the BPHC at Mugberia. He made a statement to PW-2, doctor and it was on basis thereof that PW-2 filed a complaint on 30th April, 2004 at 9-35 hours. On basis thereof Bhupatinagar P.S. Case No. 19/04 dated 30.4. 2004 under Sections 302/201 IPC was started. It is only after the filing of the said FIR that the body of the victim lady was recovered and inquest made at 11-00 hours. Thereafter the body was sent for postmortem purposes and the said postmortem was conducted at 16-00 hours on 30th April, 2004. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the matter committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) The case of the accused appellant is that the FIR so also inquest are anti-timed as from the postmortem report it will appear that the body was decomposed and the injuries could not be identified. Nonetheless, the inquest report is in great detail. Both the inquest and the postmortem were conducted on the same date within a few hours and the body could not have decomposed after the inquest was made. The filing of the FIR at 9-35 hours has also been disputed. Habu Maity, the dom who removed the body of the victim lady from the septic tank has not been examined. At the time of inquest, two injuries were found: