SOUMEN ADHIKARY @ KHOCHO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Sealdah passed in connection with S.T. No. 3(4)09 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302/394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that Namita Guha, aged about 76 years, wife of Late Subhas Kanti Guha, mother-in-law of Pronab Kumar Ghosh (P.W.3), used to reside alone in the premises No. 132/2/2 Narkeldanga Main Road, Kolkata 54. She was ailing. Her food was provided from outside delivery centre. Regularly Pronab Babu (P.W. 3) and his wife Subhasree (P.W.4) used to visit Namita Devi in her house. Occasionally Pranab Babu along with his family members also stayed with Namita Devi at her residence. On 18.12008 at about 6.40p.m. Pranab Babu came to see his mother-in-law at her house. At first Pronab Babu called her mother-in-law and thereafter knocked the door for about 30 minutes but nobody responded. Then Pronab Babu called his wife over mobile phone and requested her to come. He also informed the matter to the local people. At about 7.45 p.m. wife of Pronab Babu came and thereafter some local people arranged a ladder and one of the local boys entered the premises with the help of the ladder and opened the main door. After entering the premises Pronab Babu, his wife and local people found that Namita Guha was lying on the chair in her bed room in an unconscious state. Seeing her condition, Pronab Babu called a local doctor Jiban Krishan Mitra (P.W. 8) who after examination told him to inform the matter to the police and take the victim to the hospital. They found the head of Namita Devi was hanging the right side. Blood stains were found in her nose, mouth and ear. Some blood stains were also noticed on the floor and on the wall. The steel almirah of her bed room was found in open condition and almirah in another room was also found open and all the belongings in the said almirah like dress materials and empty jewellery boxes were found scattered on the floor of the room. Victim was declared dead of the hospital. On the complaint lodged by Pronab Babu, Phool Bagan Police Station Case No.236 dated 19.12008 was registered and the investigation was endorsed to S.I. Kanchan Garai (P.W.25). He visited the place of occurrence and seized the alamats from the place of occurrence. He also arranged for taking finger prints on some of the seized articles and photographs were taken of the place of occurrence. Inquest and post mortem was held of the dead body and on the next day investigation of the case was handed over to S.I., Rajib Sahoo (P.W.26) of Detective Department, Lalbazar. He prepared plan of the place of occurrence and sent articles for forensic examination. The appellant was arrested and his specimen signature was taken on 01.01.2009. Pursuant to his leading statement, incriminating articles were recovered from a bush near Gurudas Halt Station. Seized articles were sent for forensic examination. In the meantime, appellant confessed his guilt before the Judicial Magistrate (P.W.15). After collection of forensic and handwriting experts' reports, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 302/394 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and charges were framed under Sections 302/394 I.P.C. against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 26 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The plea of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.

(3.) Mr. Sengupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the incriminating circumstances in the instant case have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Motive for commission of crime has not been established. Fingerprints of the appellant were taken without permission of the court in violation of the provisions of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1920') and therefore, the said evidence cannot be relied upon. Manner of recovery of the stolen articles as well as other incriminating articles is shrouded in mystery. List of stolen articles had been subsequently provided by P.W. Articles were recovered from an open space which is accessible to all. There is no explanation as to how P.W.13 was present at the time when the recovery took place. Serologist's report as to the blood groups detected on the seized articles improbabilise the prosecution case. Recording of judicial confession was not voluntary. Appellant was kept in the custody of a constable prior to the recording of judicial confession. The appellant had retracted his confession and there is doubt as to whether the said confession is truthful one and motive of commission of crime as narrated in the judicial confession is not supported by the recovery of stolen articles as it was claimed that the said articles had been stolen for funding the trip of the appellant to Digha. Hence, the appellant ought to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.