KASHIMUDDIN SK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON March 16,1986 one Salera Bibi was found dead in her matrimonial home. She was married to the accused Kashimuddin Sk. Kashimuddin used to demand money from her. At least on five occasions the victim brought money from her parental house. On the day before the incident she came to her mother and demanded a sum of Rs. 10o/-, mother could not give her money. She went to her brother-in-law's house being Soukat AN, P. W. 1 who also could not give her money as he was short of fund. The next day the brother of the accused llias informed the mother of the victim being P. W. 5 that her daughter Salera died as she was suffering from disease. P. W. 1 was the defacto complainant being the brother-in-law of the victim girl. P. W. 1, P. W. 5 and P. W. 7 found marks on the neck of the victim girl and they suspected that she was killed. All witnesses corroborated with each other. Their suspicion found support from the post mortem examination conducted by the Doctor being P. W. 11 who found bruise over the body of the victim. The doctor opined that death was due to asphyxia which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He opined that death was due to throttling and manual strangulation. While examining the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused did not offer any explanation and merely denied the charges brought against him. The learned Judge of the Court below after considering the evidence that came out in the trial held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him for life. Hence, this appeal by the accused.

(2.) MR. S. S. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends before us that there were serious discrepancy and anomaly in the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 5, P. W. 7 and P. W. 11. Mr. Roy contends that all the witnesses deposed that they found marks on the neck of the victim girl however, such evidence did not find support from the post mortem examination. He also contends that had there been a case of strangulation or throttling, the hyoid bone should have been found fractured. The doctor however, did not find any such injury on the body of the victim. Mr. Roy further contends that in the First Information Report lodged by P. W. 1 it was not mentioned that Ilias informed them that the death was due to sufferance of disease. Such omission was material and would demolish the case of the prosecution. With regard to demand of money Mr. Roy points out anomaly in the evidence. Mr. Roy lastly contends that the learned Judge could not have ignored those omission and anomaly while holding the accused guilty of the offence.

(3.) MR. Mahato, learned Counsel appearing for the prosecution on the other hand contends that the discrepancies, if any, in the evidence were not material so long the factum of death was proved through post mortem report which was preceded by demand of money, which was proved through the witnesses.