DIPAK GARAI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2011, 1st February, 2011 and 2nd February, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Khatra, Bankura in Sessions Trial No.4 (1) 2010 arising out of Sessions Case No.8(6) of 2009 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- only.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that in the early morning of 5.3.2009 he had murdered his 10 year old child viz., Bela by throttling. Criminal law was set in motion by his wife, P.W.1, Kabita Garai who lodged written complaint at Khatra police station scribed by Birinchi Mondal, P.W.5 alleging P.W. 1 along with her husband i.e. the appellant and the minor daughter, Bela used to reside in the first floor of their dwelling house. At around 4.30 a.m. on 5.3.2009, she went to the field and thereafter she returned home and went to the kitchen to prepare puffed rice. Around 5.00 a.m. she heard a sound from the room and upon arriving at the spot found the dead body of her daughter. She cried for help and the villagers came to the spot. Her husband was also at the spot and confessed his guilt before the villagers. On her written complaint, Khatra Police Station Case No.15 of 2009 dated 5.3.2009 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation. In conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant and charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) During trial, most of the prosecution witnesses including P.W.1 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Though P.W.1 admitted her signature on the written complaint, she along with the scribe, P.W.5 claimed that the written complaint was prepared on the instruction of the police officer. Relying on the evidence of P.W.15, Post Mortem Doctor who opined that the child had suffered homicidal death due to throttling and as the explanation of the appellant with regard to his absence from the room was not convincing, the trial judge recorded an order of conviction against him.