SUKDEB ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction dated 26.11.2008 and sentence dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 02 of September 2007: Sessions Case No. 198/07, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code and directing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of one year. The charge under Section 201 of the Penal Code could not be proved.

(2.) On 10.04.2007 at about 10:05 hours, PW 1, the younger brother of the victim/deceased, lodged a First Information Report with the Officer-inCharge of the Suri Police Station under Section 302 of the Penal Code against the present appellant. He alleged that on 09.04.2007 at about 20:00 hours, his elder brother Swapan Das went out of his house with the present appellant, an employee of an FCI godown, but did not come back. On the next day at about 6:00 hours, the deadbody of the said Swapan Das was found lying on the eastern bank of a tank. A handkerchief was found in the mouth of the deceased and some scratch marks were noticed on his neck and right ear. PW 1 came to learn that the victim went with the appellant to the bank of the pond in a drunken condition and there they had met PW 13.

(3.) An Investigation was started into the offence alleged. PW 20 held inquest over the deadbody of the victim on 10.04.2007 at about 8:15 hours in respect of a UD case in presence of witnesses PWs 1, 2, 12, 15 and 17. Although PW 1 named the appellant in the First Information Report, in spite of being to a witness to the inquest, he did not mention the appellant's name as the accused during inquest. PW 4 held a post-mortem examination of the deadbody on 11.04.2007 at about 13:50 hours. He mentioned about the injuries found and opined that it was a case of manual strangulation, ante mortem and homicidal in nature. On 19.09.2007, charges was framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as twenty witnesses to establish its case while the defence case was mainly a denial of the prosecution version.