REKSONA BIBI @ EKSONA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A ghastly murder and rape of a four year old child namely, Nasrina Khatoon is the subject matter of the instant appeal.

(2.) The appellant and her minor sons viz., Fatick Mondal @ Isha and Saiful Mondal were accused of the murder and rape of the minor. As Fatick and Saiful were found to be juveniles at the time of commission of the offence, their cases were segregated and the appellant faced the trial in Sessions Case No.4(4) of 2014 (Spl.) and Sessions Trial No.III (XI) of 2014 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia. The genesis of the case can be traced to a written complaint lodged by the father of the victim Hasem Mandal, P.W.3 who alleged that on 27.12013 his youngest daughter went missing at about 10.00 A.M. while she was playing on the roadside before their house. He searched for her but could not trace her out. A missing Diary was lodged at Nabadwip Police Station being G.D.E.No.1436 dated 27.12013. As he could not find his daughter in the neighbourhood, he started search in other houses. They went to search the house of Sadar Mondal but his wife Reksona Bibi @ Eksona Bibi i.e. the appellant herein and her sons Fatick and Saiful restrained them from doing so. As a result, they kept vigil over the house of Sadar Mondal. It is further alleged that around 5.30 P.M. in the evening, one Manchur Mandal, P.W.2 saw the appellant heading alone towards a bamboo orchard with a sack and her sons were patrolling in front of the house. Manchur Mandal focused his torch towards the appellant and asked her what she was carrying. Hearing this, she dropped the sack. Manchur Mandal raised a hue and cry and everyone including Hasem Mandal came at the place of occurrence. The sack was taken to the roadside and in the light of the street lamp, the sack was opened and the dead body of the victim was recovered from the sack. On such complaint, First Information Report being Nabadwip Police Station Case No.724 of 2013 dated 27.12013 under Sections 376A/377/302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and her minor sons. P.W.19 who conducted investigation in the instant case came to the place of occurrence and seized the sack along with the dead body. He also seized a steel trunk from the residence of the appellant wherein the dead body was alleged to have been kept. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and the other accused persons. Charge was initially framed against the appellant under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code but subsequently separate charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by its judgement and order dated 5th May, 2015 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code; both the sentences to run concurrently.

(3.) Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. Chatterjee appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution case which is based on circumstantial evidence and has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Manchur Mandal, P.W.2 has not supported the prosecution case and the chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the alleged crime had, therefore, snapped. It is also argued that the evidence of P.W.3, the father of the victim is at variance with his earlier statement before the Police. He accordingly prayed for acquittal of the appellant.