MAHADEV DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.08.2007 and 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial Case No. 4(8)06, the appellant has preferred this appeal. By filing this appeal the convict appellant ventilates his grievances that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective. According to the appellant there being no direct evidence, the Court was supposed to consider the circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events. He has further submitted that one of the witnesses had shifted the place of occurrence. This apart, it is emphasised that the accused himself was admitted in hospital on the relevant day and at the relevant point of time and the concerned doctor, P.W. 11, deposed as such. Finally, it is asserted that there was no motive behind the alleged murder and the conclusion of the learned Trial Court is baseless.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is unimpeachable and it does not warrant any interference.

(3.) The factual scenario which emerges from a cumulative reading and scrutiny of the materials available is as follows: The marriage between the victim and appellant took place on 26.02004 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. At the wedding, some ornaments and cash were gifted to the husband of the victim. Unfortunately, the victim, who expected a rosy life, had to face a jinxed matrimony. Physical and mental torture were put upon her by the appellant and, on some occasions, she was not provided food and clothing. On the occasion of Astamongala and Rathajatra the victim came to her paternal house and disclosed her pain and agonies to her parents. After giving her some consolation, she was again sent to her matrimonial home. On 06.08.2004, the defacto complainant received the information of death of her beloved daughter. She rushed to the house of the appellant and found the victim lying on a cot with bleeding injuries all over the body. On the same day, an F.I.R. was lodged by the defacto complainant pointing a finger at the appellant as the author of the crime. In this way, law was set into motion.