RABI BARMAN Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-Rabi Barman, aged about 65 years, by an order dated 22nd January, 2001 was charged under S. 302 for intentionally causing death of his wife Shanti barman, aged about 27 years, on 2nd June, 1997. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, cooch Behar by a judgment and order dated 21st August, 2004. By an order dated 23rd august, 2004 he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE actual date of marriage between the appellant and his deceased-wife is not available. The FIR reveals that they were married about 8 years prior to the date of occurrence. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that the deceased-Shanti led conjugal life with the appellant for 4 years but she did not conceive. At that stage she discovered that her husband Rabi had underwent a vasectomy operation and was therefore unable to procreate. She deserted her matrimonial home soon thereafter and came back to her brother's house. Rabi came several times to take her home but she refused to go. In order to earn her livelihood she went Siliguri where she used to work as a maidservant. She came back to her brother's house about 10/12 days before the date of occurrence. On 2nd June, 1997 at about 7. 30 a. m. in the morning while she was proceeding to one Bacchani Barman's house she came across her husband, who had been engaged in that village for last three or four days in some type of bamboo work. He had a dao (a sharp weapon used for cutting bamboo etc.) in his hand. Rabi caught hold of his wife by the tuft of her hairs, dragged her forcibly and dealt deadly blows with the dao upon her neck, back and head. As a result she died instantaneously. He was caught by the local people led by one Kokan and was confined in a room of an adjoining primary school.

(3.) P. W. 1 Basanta, brother of the deceased in his deposition has by and large supported the case appearing from the F. I. R. The P. W. 1, however, is not an eye-witness of the actual incident.