SOM SHANKAR ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28 April, 2009 and 29 April, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 1(11)08 arising out of Sessions Case No. 3(11)08. The accused/appellant was charged with commission of offence under Sections 376 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The accused was convicted and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. He was further sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the uncle of the victim girl on 22 June, 2008, essentially, is that the victim namely, Jyotsna Mallick aged 17 years, resident of village Janipur, District- North 24 Parganas went out of the house on 22 June 2008 at about 4 P.M. to collect flowers of 'potol' (pointed gourd) from the potol field. When she did not return, PW1 (de facto complainant) and two others namely, Basudeb Rakshit (PW7) and Sarojit Mondal (PW21) went out in search of her and at around 7 P.M., they found her lying dead, strangulated with her 'orna', in the mestha field of Murari Roy (PW4). Her churidar pant was lying by her side while inner pant was lying on her belly. According to the prosecution, the victim girl was raped and then strangulated to death by her tormentor between 4 and 7 P.M. The prosecution case is that the accused raped the victim girl and then killed her by strangulating her with her 'orna'. Thirteen days after the incident the accused was arrested by the police from Rajarhat.

(3.) The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses to substantiate their charge of rape and the murder of the victim. The entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye- witness. The defence has not examined any witness. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At the commencement of the trial the accused pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. Let us now advert to the deposition of the key witnesses and relevant documents which the learned Trial Judge has recorded.