BHAIRAB CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants in this appeal have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each on charge of committing murder of one Lata Chakraborty on 8th October, 2007. In default in paying fine, further imprisonment of six months have been directed. Prosecution case is that on 8th October, 2007, at Shalboni forest kerosene oil was poured on the victim upon being tied to a tree by a rope, and thereafter she was ignited. In the written complaint made by the father of the victim on 9th October, 2007, the first appellant (Bhairab) has been referred to as her husband. On the basis of this complaint, formal F.I.R. was registered on 9th October 2007 at 11:55 hrs. There is some dispute as to whether the marriage between the victim and the first appellant had actually been solemnized or not. In the written complaint it has been recorded that the marriage had taken place on 6th August, 2007 as per hindu rites and customs but registration of the marriage was not effected, though the application for the same was submitted before the Sub-Registrar, Suri. A copy of the application under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been made Exhibit-"14". The prosecution version that Bhairab and Lata had been living together has however been denied by the appellants in response to their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution that on the morning of 9th October 2007, Lalu Lohar (P.W.11), a resident of Shalboni had informed the family of Lata that she had suffered burn injury. The P.W.1 (Mukti Kahar) and P.W.2 (Archana Kahar) being the parents of the victim have deposed that they went to the spot where the victim was found in charred (the witnesses referred to her condition as half-burnt) state but conscious. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital and complaint was made to the Suri police station on the same day that is 9th October, 2007. The father of the victim was the complainant, P.W.1 and in his written complaint he named the appellants Bhairab and Manju along with three other persons, Santu, Budo and Subir as accused persons. The victim survived for nine days after suffering burn injuries. The cause of her death, as it appears from the post-mortem report, was due to the effects of burn injuries. The autopsy surgeon, Dr. Debashis Som (P.W.15) has corroborated this in his evidence and also stated that injury was ante-mortem in nature. The nature of injuries was extensive, as is revealed from the post-mortem report. The autopsy surgeon's deposition was that during the period she was in hospital, she was capable of speaking because her larynx and voice box area "were not caught with fire".

(3.) The prosecution has altogether examined twenty witnesses in this case, which was registered on the basis of the written complaint of P.W.1 as Suri P.S Case No.168/2007. Initial case was started under Sections 498A/326/307 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Charges were framed against all the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the 1860 Code while the appellants were charged under Section 498A of the Code as well. The Trial Court however, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against Santu, Buddhadeb and Subir and found them not guilty of committing the offence they were charged with. The Trial Court also found the appellants not guilty of offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. Among the twenty witnesses examined, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were the parents of the victim. Other witnesses of fact were Doli Kahar-P.W.3, Anarkali Kahar-P.W.4, Balai Kahar-P.W.5, Renu Bagdi-P.W.7, Padma Lohar-P.W.8, Mangli Murmu-P.W.9, Lakshmi Kahar-P.W.10, and Upen Kahar-P.W.14. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.10 were relatives of the victim. P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.14 were co-villagers of the victim, the village being known as Kariddhya. P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11 were residents of Shalboni village, where the victim was found in charred condition. Of these witnesses of fact P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8 were declared hostile. P.W.17, P.W.18 and P.W.20 were police witnesses, the last among them being the investigating officer.