LAXMAN BAGDI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against a judgment of conviction of the appellant delivered by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bankura finding the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgement was delivered on 31st March,2005. The appellant had been charged with committing murder of his wife, Sumitra Bagdi in the night between 25th and 26th December, 2000 by throttling. He had also been charged with causing disappearance the dead body of the victim, in this case being an evidence of the offence of murder for screening himself, as the offender, from legal punishment. The Trial Court awarded sentence for undergoing rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence committed under Section 302 of the Code and further rigorous imprisonment for three years for committing the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Code. The Trial Court also imposed sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- for the former and Rs.500/- for the latter offences, prescribing additional two years rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine so far as sentence under Section 302 of the Code is concerned and rigorous imprisonment for two months in respect of sentence awarded under Section 201 of the Code. The victim went missing from her matrimonial home, which was noticed by her two sons on 26th December, 2000. On 28th December 2000, the victim's mother (Parbati Majhi) who has deposed as P.W. 10, had lodged a missing diary. This was registered as G.D.E. No. 645 dated 28th December 2000. It has transpired from her evidence that near relatives of the victim tried to search her out but the victim could not be traced.

(2.) It was on 16th January, 2001 at about 6:05 a.m. the Investigating Officer, Prabal Sengupta (P.W.15) received an anonymous phone call to the effect that stench was coming out from an abandoned well of the village Bagajol. At the material point of time, the P.W.15 was posted as the officer-in-charge of Joypur police station. The parental and matrimonial homes of the victim appear to be in the same village, Bagajol, over which the aforesaid police station had jurisdiction. On receiving the information, the Investigating Officer recorded the same as G.D.E. No. 417 dated 16th January, 2001 and proceeded to the said location. Prosecution case is that the villagers had gathered near the well and found a tied jute sack inside the well. Police caused the sack to be lifted out and on untying the sack, a dead body was discovered. Near relatives of the victim, being her brother Swapan Majhi (P.W.1), her mother Parbati Majhi (P.W.10) and her two sons, Mithun Bagdi (P.W.11) and Prasenjit Bagdi (P.W.12) were among the persons who identified the body to be that of the victim. At the location itself, the Investigating Officer received a written complaint from Swapan Majhi. The scribe of the complaint was Rampada Tangi (P.W.3) a co-villager. The Investigating Officer had sent that written complaint to the Joypur Police Station through a constable for instituting a case. The investigation was started at the said location. Thereafter, inquest was made and the dead body was sent to Bishnupur Sub-Divisional Hospital through a constable for post-mortem examination. The jute sack was seized at the location. Subsequently, after post- mortem examination, the wearing apparels and certain other objects were also seized, and the seizure list in that regard has been made Exhibit-"15". The post-mortem report has been made Exhibit-10.

(3.) The appellant was arrested from the location at which the body of the victim was discovered on 16th January, 2001 only. This has transpired from the evidence of the Investigating Officer as also certain other witnesses of fact, in particular, co-villagers P.W.5 (Nabakumar Majhi) and P.W.7 (Kaltu Majhi). The F.I.R. was registered on the same day on the basis of the written complaint forwarded from the place of discovery of the body and on that basis Joypur P.S. Case No. 3/2001 dated 16th January 2001 was started. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the provisions of the Code in which the appellant was eventually convicted and charges were also framed under those two Sections. In trial, on behalf of the prosecution, two sets of witnesses of facts, apart from the police witnesses and the autopsy surgeon were examined. The first set comprised of near relatives of the victim and the second set comprised of co-villagers. Among the near relatives of the victim who examined were the de facto complainant, being the brother of the deceased (P.W. 1), Nayan Majhi (P.W.4)- an uncle of the victim, Urmila Bagdi (P.W. 9)- an aunt of the victim. P.W. 10 the mother of the victim, and two sons of the victim being P.W.11 and P.W.12. P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were covillagers, of both the victim and the appellant/accused. There were two police witnesses. A.K. Mukherjee, an S.I. of Police was the P.W. 14. He had received the information from the P.W. 15 on 16th January, 2001 and instituted Joypur P.S. Case No. 03/2001 upon registering the formal F.I.R. The other police witness was the Investigating Officer Prabal Sengupta (P.W.15). The written complaint has been made Exhibit-"5", and had been proved by the scribe P.W.3 (Rampada Tangi) as also the P.W.1, who was the defacto complainant.