GURUPRASAD Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1966 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapur in Sessions Trial No. 26 of September, 1983 convicting appellant Guru Prasad Gurupada Mishra under Sections 302 /34 and 201 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. Two other accused persons Jagmohan Adhikari Khokan and Milan Acharjya were acquitted of both the charges under Section 302/34 and 20 1/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:

(3.) The murder of Mohini Mohan is not disputed before us and has also been proved by overwhelming evidence. The evidence of PW5. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 18 shows that on 7.7.81 the dead body of Mohini Mohan Wills recovered from river Chandia by PW 1. It was wrapped up in a gunny bag which wall floating on the river PW 1 held inquest. There were marks of injuries on the neck, face and nose. PW 15 Dr. H.K. Roy the then S.D.M.O. Tamluk, who held the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mohini Mohan Mishra found the following injuries: 1 One incised gaping wound 6 x 4 x vertebral bone deep on the back of upper part of the neck: 2 One incised wound 4 x 3 x bone deep on the scapular region. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the cut injury on the neck described above which was antemortem and homicidal in nature. According to the doctor, the two injuries were sufficient to cause instantaneous death. There is, therefore, no doubt that the deceased was brutally murdered and the dead body was wrapped up in a gunny bag and thrown in the river Chandia with the object of causing disappearance of the evidence of murder in order to screen the offender from legal punishment. 6. The next question, and the crucial one, is whether the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased and causing disappearance of the evidence of murder. 7. There is no direct evidence of any eyewitness in this case. The prosecution case rests upon extra-judicial confession, since retracted, and circumstantial evidence. Let us first consider the alleged extra judicial confession, According to the prosecution, the appellant made two extra judicial confessions - the first before PW 12 Amal Kumar Maity and the second before PW 9 Sukdev lana. PW 12 Amal Kumar Maity was a student of the deceaood and he used to 12 to the house of the deceased toT take lessons in music on every Sunday on payment of a remuneration of that- per month. His evidence does to show that on Sunday, 21st Ashar corresponding to 5.7.81 he went to the house or the deceased at of about 11.00 A.M. At that time appellant Gurupada used to stay in the house of the deceased. On his queries, Gurupada told him that the deceased bad gone to Calcutta. He stayed in the house of the deceased with Gurupada on that night. Next day (6.7.81) he had lunch cooked by Gurupada in the house of the deceased. After lunch when he was about to leave the hone of the deceased for his village between 1.30 P.M