KUMED MURA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th December/20th December, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 164 of 2012 [Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2012] convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 12th April, 2011 at around 6:00 to 7:00 P.M. he had dragged the victim, Sukri Mura out of the house and assaulted her on the head resulting in her death. Over the incident, son of the victim, Bhuchu Mura (PW1) lodged FIR resulting in registration of Kotshila Police Station Case No. 29 of 2011 dated 13th April, 2011 under Section 302 IPC. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed under the aforesaid provision of law against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. He, however, did not examine any witness to probabilise such defence. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 19th December/20th December, 2012 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

(3.) Mr. Moinak Bakshi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is doubtful whether PW 2 had witnessed the incident. Conduct of the other purported eyewitnesses, namely, PWs 4 and 5 in not narrating the incident to anyone after the occurrence raises doubt as to the truthfulness of their version. He also argued that the motive of crime has not been proved in the instant case. The facts and circumstances of the case even if believed to be true does not show that the appellant had intended to kill the victim. Hence, he may be acquitted from the instant case or alternatively his conviction may be altered to one under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.