STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KUNAL MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By judgment dated 9.3.2007 the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur recorded conviction of accused Kunal Majumdar son of Narainchandra, resident of C/165, Survey Park, Santoshpur, Jadavpur, Kolkata, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376/511 Indian Penal Code and awarded death sentence. The proceedings to this Court are submitted as per provisions of Section 366(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. To challenge the conviction recorded and sentence awarded, the accused has also preferred Criminal Appeal No.243/2007 and Jail Appeal No.313/2007.

(2.) The facts of the case, according to the prosecution, are that on 18.1.2006 a complaint (Ex.P/6) was preferred by one Laltu Manjhi, resident of village Bohran, District Bardman (West Bengal), before the Station House Officer of Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur stating therein that about two months earlier one Sudeep Dey, resident of Bohran, came to him to send his daughter Bharti to Jodhpur as his cousin brother-in-law Kunal Majumdar was in need of a maid servant to discharge little domestic work and to assist Sheela wife of Kunal, who at that time suffered a cesarean delivery. Accordingly, Bharti was sent to Jodhpur and was employed as a housemaid at the residence of Kunal. At about 25 days prior to the date of complaint Shri Sudeep Dey, through whom his daughter came to be employed with the appellant, informed over phone that his daughter wanted to speak him. When he talked to his daughter, he could sense the plight of his daughter at the residence of the appellant. His daughter desired to explain her ordeal at the instance of the appellant but she was prevented from talking to him in detail. On 16.1.2006 at about 05:00 AM he received an information through Sudeep Dey that the appellant informed him over phone that his daughter fell unconscious due to vertigo and was admitted to hospital. On such information, when he reached Jodhpur, the appellant informed him that his daughter was dead. He saw her body in the mortuary of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on 18.1.2006 and noticed several injuries. The neighbours of the appellant informed him that Bharti (deceased) was constantly tortured by the appellant during preceding two months, the period in which she was employed as maid servant with the appellant. A definite allegation was made in the complaint that Bharti Manjhi was killed by the appellant by strangulation.

(3.) Acting upon the complaint received, a case was registered and after investigation a police report was filed as per provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The competent court committed the report to the court of Sessions and the court of Sessions framed charges for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the same, trial commenced as desired by the accused appellant. Before the trial court prosecution witnesses 1 to 17 were examined in support of the prosecution apart from exhibits P/1 to P/20. An opportunity was given to the accused appellant to explain the adverse circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. The accused appellant denied the offences alleged with assertion that the deceased was a patient of epilepsy and on the date of incident she suffered the fits of epilepsy resulting into breathlessness, thus, fell down and sustained injuries. To provide artificial respiration efforts were made by the appellant and his wife to open her stiff jaw with the aid of spoon and further water too was poured on her face. She was subsequently taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead. Necessary information then was given to the parents of Bharti Manjhi. It was also stated that no rape was committed on the deceased, as such the complaint was false and he was innocent. In defence, testimony of Smt. Sheela (DW-1) wife of the accused appellant was examined.