HALEMA BIBI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 4(10) of 2003 corresponding to Sessions Case 215 of 2001 convicting accused Halema Bibi and Kalu Sk. and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default S.I. for one year each under section 302/34 IPC. One Md. Rejaul Karim lodged complaint with O.C., Gopalgunge I.C., Malda being accompanied by Dilwara Hussain, Azijul Haque and Halema Bibi, alleging that he solemnized the marriage between his nephew Md. Samsuddin aged 21 years and said Halema one year prior to the incident. On 18.06.97 at 10.00 p.m. both Halema and Samsuddin went to their bedroom to sleep after taking meal. On 19.06.97 Halema as usual got up from the bed and started domestic work, but Samsuddin did not get up. The grand mother Jarina Bibi called Samsuddin but Samsuddin did not get up. Jarina Bibi then moved Samsuddin with hand and found that he was lying dead. There was mark of pressure around the neck of Samsuddin. There was also blood on the left eye. The villagers were called and the matter was narrated to them. The villagers also expressed doubt over the death of Samsuddin and they refused to bury the body. On being asked, Halema Bibi at first did not speak anything. In the evening Halema Bibi confessed before the villagers including the informant that she along with her paramour Kalu Sk. killed Samsuddin on the previous night by pressing old saree around the neck and by way of strangulation. After the incident Kalu Sk. fled away and Halema Bibi was produced at the P.S. by the informant along with others. The deadbody of Samsuddin was lying in his house at the time of lodging the FIR. The incident was reported on 19.06.97 at 22.45 hours. After receipt of the complaint, the P.S. Case No. 99 dated 19.06.97 was started under section 302/34 of the IPC. After completion of investigation the chargesheet was submitted. The learned Trial Court after considering the materials on record framed charges against the accused persons Halema Bibi and Kalu Sk. under sections 302/34 and 120B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Prosecution in this case examined as many as 14 P.Ws. including the near relatives of the deceased, seizure witnesses, autopsy surgeon and the I.O. P.W.2 to P.W.6 and P.W. 10 & P.W. 11 were declared hostile.

(2.) The learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the materials on record was pleased to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence holding that the circumstantial evidence unerringly pointed at the guilt of the accused. It was also observed by the learned Trial Court that there was extra-judicial confession of Halema to Jarina and others who gathers there. The learned Judge also observed that the motive of Halema to murder her husband Samsuddin could be gathered from her confession to the villagers regarding her love affair with Kalu Sk. The learned Trial Court also considered the evidence of the autopsy surgeon and considering all the materials on record the learned Trial Judge passed the judgment of conviction and sentence as aforesaid.

(3.) Mr. Bajpayee, appears on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Bajpayee contends that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the extra-judicial confession of Halema Bibi and there is no direct evidence as to the alleged incident. It is contended that the circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove the charges against the appellants. Mr. Bajpayee contends that excepting alleged extra-judicial confession made by Halema Bibi there is no evidence against Kalu Sk. as to his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. It is contended that if there is no evidence against Kalu Sk., in that case the alleged confession made by Halema cannot be used against her. Mr. Bajpayee contends that if the alleged extra-judicial confession is found to be not acceptable, in that case Halema cannot be held guilty, inasmuch as, it was not possible for Halema Bibi alone to kill her husband. It is contended that there is no evidence to show that the extra-judicial confession was made voluntarily. It is contended that there is no corroboration of the alleged extra-judicial confession made by Halema Bibi. Mr. Bajpayee contends that there is evidence to show that Halema Bibi was put under threat by the villagers as to the cause of death of Samsuddin. Mr. Bajpayee finally contends that having regard to the evidence on record the learned Trial Court was not justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. Mr. Bajpayee has referred to and cited a decision reported in 1992 (1) SCC 473 [Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai vs. State of Gujrat].