JAGABANDHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Jagabandhu Singh (in Jail) against the order of conviction and sentence dated 11.8.94 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. 5 of May, 1992 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 and to 4(four) years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to suffer S.I. of six months under Section 201 I.P.C. In the above Sessions case both the present appellant and also his mother Smt. Urmila Singh were charged under Section 498A read with Section 34 and also under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and the appellant was separately charged, under Section 302 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the present appellant and his mother Urmila Singh of the charge under Section 498A and also acquitted Urmila Singh of the offence charged under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The prosecution case is based on the written complaint as per Ext. 3 dated 1.9.89 lodged by Amulya Dhan Bhuniya, S.I. of police attached to I/C Chadrakona Road B.H., P.S. Garbeta, District Midnapore. It is stated there that on 27.8.89 at 11 -30 hours one Dasharath Samanta, son of Badal Samanta of Ghatmura, P.S. Garbeta came to the Beat Mouse and lodged a written complaint stating that he had come to know from the village Chowkidar that his sister Rumi Singh (the victim) wife of Jagabandhu Singh (the appellant) of Dakshinsole died by hanging and his daughter aged about 4 -5 months was also lying dead. It was further stated by Dasharath Samantha in his above written complaint that on receipt of such information he went to the spot and found his dead sister and female child but could not know the cause of death. Accordingly, on the basis of the said written complaint Garbeta P.S. U.D. case No. 32/89 dated 27.8.89 was started by the police officer Amulya Dhan Bhuniya who held inquest in respect of both the dead bodies on 27.8.89 at 12 -30 hours and submitted a report on the same date (Ext. 5). The inquest was held in the presence of many local witnesses including Urmila Singh the mother of the present appellant. On enquiry in course of investigation of U.D. case the complainant came to know that there was a quarrel between the victim Rumi and her mother -inlaw Urmila on the night of 26.8.89 and that the appellant also returned home on that night late. On 27.8.89 in the morning they detected the dead bodies. The said complainant police officer sent both the dead bodies to Midnapore Sadar Hospital morgue for post mortem examination. Dr. Achintya Kumar Upadhya, M.O. Sadar Hospital held P.M. reports dated 28.8.89 (Ext. No. 1 and 1/1 respectively). In the P.M. report in respect of Rumi it has been stated that according to the medical officer death of the victim was due to shock and strangulation as he detected an oblique non -continuous ligature mark present across the upper part of neck, knot mark present behind the left ear, parchmentisation not present, haematoma beneath the ligature mark in front of trachea and hyoid bone fractured. Accordingly, the complainant police officer stated in Ext. 3 that Rumi Singh was murdered by strangulation and then hanged with intent to disappearance of evidence by unknown assailant. He suspected Jagabandhu and Urmila Singh responsible for the murder of Rumi Singh. On the basis of this complaint as per Ext. 3 formal FIR was drawn up as per Ext. 2 and Garbeta P.S. case No. 124 of 1989 dated 1.8.89 under Section 302/201 I.P.C. was started and in course of investigation both the appellant and his mother were arrested. Police submitted charge -sheet against both the appellant and his mother under Sections 498A/302 and 201 I.P.C.

(2.) AS I have already noted the Trial Court charged both the appellant and his mother under Section 498A/34 and under Section 201/34 I.P.C. and the appellant Jagabandhu was separately charged under Section 302 I.P.C. to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As Urmila Singh has been acquitted, it is no longer necessary to refer to her in this case and to the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of her involvement in the commission of the above offences. In the Trial Court the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses who may be divided into specific groups for the sake of convenience. P.W. 1 Phani Pahalal, P.W.2 Jaidev Chakraborty, P.W.4 Dhananjoy Pehalal, P.W. 5 Nirode Sarkar, P.W.10 Mantu Paramanik and P.W. 11 Goutam Pahalal are the neighbours of the appellant in the village Dakshinsole. P.W. 3 Nakul Singh is the father of the appellant living with him in the same house where the death took place. P.W. 6 Bhaskar Singh is a brother of the appellant living in the same village although in a separate house from long before the date of incident. P.W.9 Himangsu Singh is another.brother of the appellant who also stays in a different house belonging to one Jangir Singh. P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 are the sisters of the appellant named Chanchala Singh and Chandana Singh respectively. Chanchala was married at the time of the trial but before her marriage she used to stay with her parents in the ground floor of her paternal house where the appellant and his wife used to stay in the first floor. P.W. 7 Mahadev Nayak is the village Chowkidar. P.W. 8 is the medical officer who held post mortem in respect of the dead bodies of Rumi and her female child about 5 months old. P.W. 14, 15, 16 and 17 are police witnesses. P.W. 14 was the O.C. Garbeta P.S. at the relevant time who drew up the formal FIR as per Ext. 2 on the basis of Ext. 3. P.W. 15 Swapan Banarjee is the I.O. at the initial stage and P.W. 16 Swapan Dutta is the I.O. who took up investigation at a latter stage and submitted charge sheet. P.W. 17 Amulya Dha Bhuniya, S.I. of Police is the maker of the complaint as per Ext. 3 on the basis of which above police case was started.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of P.W. 3 Nakul the father of the appellant, and P.W. 8 the Doctor -who held the post mortem examination has found the appellant guilty of an offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration the admitted fact that appellant used to live with his wife and child, in the first floor of his paternal house. The learned Trial Judge has also relied upon the evidence of P.W. 3 stating that on the fateful night the appellant who is a coolie porter working in a truck returned home late at night and went upstairs to sleep where the victim and the child were living. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to a finding that both the appellant and the victim were last seen together in the first floor of the house where none else had any access and on the basis of the medical evidence of P.W. 8 he has come to the conclusion that the victim was murdered by strangulation and that she did not commit suicide. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge has come to a finding that the murdered was committed by Jagabandhu and after committing the murder of his wife he alone put his wife hanging from the ceiling in the other adjacent room of the first floor in order to screen the evidence of murder so that it can look like a case of suicide by hanging. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the above evidence has held that the charges under Sections 302 and 201 have been proved against the appellant and accordingly he has passed the impugned sentences.