LAKSMAN BHUIYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated April 25, 2008 and April 28, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial Case No. XXIV of July 2007. By virtue of the impugned judgment, appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention under gone in custody be set off as per provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. PC. ) The short facts leading to filing this appeal are as follows: On October 11, 2006 at 06.15 hrs, ASI Somnath Chakraborty, duty Officer, Kaharagpur Local Police Station received one telephonic information from PW 2 that appellant Lakshman Bhuiya had committed murder of his wife Sumitra Bhuiya by an axe and accordingly he diarised the said information being GDE No. 556 (exhibit 8). A UD Case being 88/06 dated October 11, 2006 was started. As per direction of PW 19, the officer in charge of Kharagpur local police station, PW 14 along with force went to the spot. At 07.15 hrs. PW 1, Upa Pradhan submitted one written complaint stating that at around 04.00 a.m. on getting the news of appellant killing his wife Sumitra by an axe, he went to the place of occurrence. On being questioned by him,appellant confessed his guilt and as such he was detained and reported to the Duty Officer over phone. SI P.K. Mistri, on receipt of that complaint forwarded the same to the Officer-In -Charge of Karagpur Local Police Station for starting of the case. On the basis of that complaint, PW 19 started Karagpur Local Police Station Case No. 222 dated October 11, 2006 under Sections 498A/302 IPC against the appellant and the case was endorsed to PW 22 for investigation. PW 22 held inquest on the same date at 07.15 hrs over the dead body of the victim inside the house of the appellant where the dead body of the victim was lying in presence of PW1, PW2 and PW16. During inquest PW 22 detected deep wide wound on the head and neck of the deceased and bleeding from the left ear and nose and found blood smeared axe near the dead body. The name of the appellant surfaced during inquest to be the assailant.

(2.) On the same day at about 02 p.m., Dr. Ranjit Kumar Hanshda conducted post mortem over the dead body of the victim at Kharagpur sub- divisional hospital morgue and after completion of post mortem examination prepared a report (exhibit 9). During postmortem examination the doctor found cut injuries on the left side of fore head, middle of the head, left side of the neck and back of the head and abrasion over the right cheek, left side of fore head, right elbow joint etc. and opined that the cause of death was due to cardio-respiratory failure,shock and haemorrhage, ante mortem in nature and those injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW 22, thereafter, on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 498A/ 302 IPC. On August 28, 2007 charges under Section 498A/ 302 were framed against the appellant and upon his denial of any involvement in the crime trial commenced.

(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and also produced and proved the FIR, inquest report, seizures, post mortem report, rough sketch map with index, GDE etc. and thereafter on completion of trial and examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. learned trial judge passed the impugned judgement Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence are not sustainable in law as place of occurrence is not fixed, weapon of offence though seized or any FSL report was not produced during trial, doctor who conducted post mortem examination was also not examined to ascertain as to whether it was homicidal death or not and the evidence of PW11,minor daughter of the victim is not reliable. Mr. Bakshi further submitted that extra judicial confession of the appellant was not made voluntarily and the same should not be acted upon. According to Mr. Bakshi prosecution has failed to bring home the charge of murder against the appellant. Alternatively, it was submitted by Mr. Bakshi that the appellant is not a habitual offender and the incident might have occurred at the spur of the moment and there was no intention to kill, so at best the provision of Section 304 Part 1 is applicable. Ms. Sujata Das learned Advocate appearing for the appellant along with learned Advocate Mr. Rana Mukherjee submitted that there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and the victim and the prosecution witnesses having no enmity with the appellant have clearly stated about the involvement of the appellant in causing the death of his wife and even the appellant also made extra judicial confession admitting his guilt. She further submitted that though the post mortem report does not mention that it was homicidal in nature but the evidence of the witnesses clearly indicates that it was a murder and the appellant also corroborated the same during examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. She further submitted that even the weapon of offence was recovered from the place of occurrence where the dead body was lying. She also submitted that the seized weapon and other seized articles were sent to the FSL for examination but no report was received by the IO. According to Ms. Sujata Das prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.