Sri Indrajit Paul vs State Of West Bengal
2022 Latest Caselaw 5821 Cal

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi And The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

C.R.A. 154 of 2014

Sri Indrajit Paul

-Vs-

State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Mr. Kusal Kumar Mukherjee, Adv.

For the State                  : Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Adv.
                                Mrs. Manasi Roy, Adv.

Heard on                       : 24.08.2022

Judgment on                    : 24.08.2022.


Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-

Appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 27.08.2013

and 30.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, in

Sessions Case No. 315 of 2011 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 7(4)

of 2012 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.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six

months more.

Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the

effect that the appellant was married to one Mousumi Das (Paul) 15

years ago. A daughter and son were born to the couple. Few years

after the marriage, Mousumi was subjected to physical torture by

the appellant. Due to such torture Mousumi used to take refuge at

her parental home. On 02.05.2011, appellant again assaulted

Mousumi. She took refuge in the house of another person. Thereafter

she came to the residence of her father, Ganesh Chandra Das (P.W.

1). On the next day appellant came to his father-in-law's house and

begged forgiveness for his misbehaviour. On 06.05.2011 appellant

again came to his father-in-law's house and took Mousumi away. He

took Mousumi along with their children to his elder sister's house at

Vivekananda Park. On that day around 10.30 A.M. appellant with

the assistance of his sister and others murdered Mousumi. Hearing

the news her father went to Ghola Hospital where he found his

daughter lying dead. He lodged written complaint at the police

station resulting in registration of Ghola Police Station Case No. 169

of 2011 dated 06.05.2011 under Sections 498A/302/120B/34 of the

Indian Penal Code against the appellant, his sister, namely, Jhuma

Pal, her husband Ranjit Pal and their two sons namely Chiranjit Pal

and Prosenjit Pal.

In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against

the appellant and the said accused persons. Charges were framed

under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code against the

appellant and under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code

against the other accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial prosecution examined 12 witnesses

and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the accused

persons was one of innocence and false implication.

In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned

judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant, as

aforesaid. By the selfsame judgment and order learned Trial Judge

acquitted the other accused persons of the charges levelled against

them.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the appellant submits

sole eye-witness (P.W. 7) is unreliable. Her deposition suffers from

various contradictions and/or inconsistencies. Post-mortem doctor

(P.W. 8) does not corroborate the deposition of P.W. 7. Appellant was

acquitted under section 498A IPC. Motive of crime has not been

proved. Hence, appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.

On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the State

submits P.W. 7 is the daughter of the couple. She was present at the

place of occurrence. She unequivocally stated how her father i.e. the

appellant had assaulted the victim resulting in her death. Her

deposition is corroborated by other witnesses as well as post-mortem

doctor, P.W. 8. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Star witness for the prosecution is Shrabani Pal, daughter of

the deceased, Mousumi. She was examined as P.W. 7. She deposed

on 06.05.2011 her father had taken her and her younger brother to

her aunt's house at Sodepur. Thereafter they went to her maternal

uncle's house at Sodepur Nilachal Pally. Her mother was present in

the said house. Her father took her mother to her aunt's house at

Vivekananda Park where her father assaulted her mother in the first

floor of the house and thereafter took her inside the room and locked

it. She requested her aunt and her brothers to save her mother but

they did not help. Her mother shouted "bachchao bachchao". She

went upstairs and noticed blood coming out from the gap of the door

of that room. She knocked at the door. After some time her father

opened the door. Her father had pierced a part of scissors into the

eye of her mother. She also noticed the UPS in the room was in blood

stained condition. She made statement before learned Magistrate as

well as police. She remained unshaken during cross-examination.

Her deposition is corroborated by post-mortem doctor, Dr.

Dulal Krishna Das (P.W. 8). He found 16 injuries on the body of the

victim. He noted the following injuries:

"1. Triangular lacerated wound 2 ½ inch X (½ X 2 ) inch bone

on the right side of the forehead touching the mid line and hair

line above right eye brow.

2. One abrasion one and ½ X 1 inch on the right zygomatic

area.

3. One bruise 3 inch X 2 inch on the right side of face in front

of the right ear touching the tragus.

4. One lacerated wound ½ inch X ¼ inch bone on the middle of

the nose having fracture of nasal bone.

5. One lacerated wound 1 inch X ½ inch bone deep in the

upper part of the left forehead touching the mid line and 1 ¾

inch above the left eye brow.

6. One bruise 1 ½ X 1 inch on the left upper eye lid.

7. One bruise 2 ½ inch X 2 ½ inch on the left chick having

three lacerated wounds ¼ inch X ¼ inch X skin, ¾ X ¼ X

bone and ¼ inch X ¼ inch skin on it.

8. 1 ½ inch X ½ inch bone in the interio posterio on the lower

part of the left parital region.

9. One lacerated wound 1 ½ X ½ X bone ½ inch below and

behind the injury no. 8.

10. One lacerated wound 2 ½ inch X 1 inch bone on the left

side of the back of the head from above downwords touching

the posterior mid line.

11. Three punctured wound ¼ inch X ¼ inch muscle on the

back of the lower part of the neck.

12. Seven punctured wounds ¼ inch X ¼ inch muscle on the

back of the right upper chest.

13. One abrasion 1 inch X ¼ inch on the back of the forearm

2 inch above the wrist.

14. One bruise 2 ½ inch X 2 inch on the right upper aspect 4

inch above the right elbow.

15. Two punctured wounds ¼ inch X 1 inch muscle on the

back of the right palm.

16. One lacerated wound 1 ½ inch X ½ inch muscle on the

chin."

He opined that the death was due to the effects of above noted

injuries, ante mortem and homicidal in nature. In cross-examination,

he stated that he found multiple punctured wounds which were due

to stabbing.

Mr. Mukherjee argued that the opinion of post-mortem doctor

(P.W. 8) does not support the manner of assault as narrated by P.W.

7. P.W. 7 stated her father had assaulted with scissors and UPS.

Post-mortem doctor (P.W. 8) stated punctured wound was due to

stabbing. Pair of scissors have a pointed tip and may be used for

stabbing. Hence, opinion of the post-mortem doctor with regard to

the nature of injuries corroborate the manner of assault as narrated

by P.W. 7.

P.W. 12 (Joydeb Dey) is the investigating officer. He went to

the place of occurrence and seized blood stained UPS, one cord, one

blood stained pillow cover, one blood stained full shirt and one pair

of blood stained scissors and one gold coloured ear ring and two

pieces of blood stained pala (red bangle) and sample of blood on the

floor and sample of dust from the house of sister of the appellant at

Vivekananda Park under a seizure list marked as Exbt.-11. Articles

were sent for FSL examination.

P.W. 10 (Dr. Sipra Ray), Assistant Director, Biology Division,

State Forensic Department, Belgachhia, deposed she detected blood

on the UPS, Cord, Pillow cover, Full sleeved shirt, Scissors, Broken

bangle pieces, Dark brown stained cotton wool, hair, nails, wearing

apparels of the deceased and the sample collected from the floor.

Serologist report noted presence of human blood in some of those

articles but no opinion could be given with regard to other articles

due to disintegration.

These circumstances read along with opinion of the post-

mortem doctor corroborate the version of the eye-witness, P.W. 7.

Other evidence on record also supports the prosecution case.

P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased and defacto complainant. He

deposed appellant used to subject his daughter Mousumi to physical

and mental torture. On 02.05.2011 she took refuge at his house. On

03.05.2011 appellant came to his house and begged forgiveness. On

06.05.2011 appellant again came to the house and took away

Mousumi. Thereafter he received information that Mousumi had

been murdered at the sister's house of the appellant at Vivekananda

Park. He went to Ghola Hospital and found his daughter had died.

He lodged written complaint scribed by P.W. 3. He also signed on

the inquest report at the Ghola Hospital.

P.W.2, Sima Das and P.W.4, Dipak Das are sister-in-law and

brother of Mousumi respectively. They also corroborated the

prosecution case that Mousumi had been assaulted by the appellant

on 6.5.2011 at the residence of her sister at Vivekananda Park. They

saw the dead body of Mousumi at Ghola Hospital.

P.W.4 is a signatory to the seizure of various articles including

the UPS and scissors from the place of occurrence.

P.W. 6 is a neighbour of the sister of the appellant. He is a post

occurrence witness. He saw the dead body on the first floor of the

house. He is also a signatory to the seizure list prepared at the spot.

The aforesaid pieces of evidence corroborate the prosecution

case and lend credence to the version of the eyewitness, PW7. She is

the daughter of the couple. Her presence at the place of occurrence is

fully established and I have no reason to disbelieve her truthful

version which is corroborated by the aforesaid evidence on record.

When prosecution case is fully established through the

credible evidence of an eye-witness and other evidence on record,

failure to prove motive shall not be a ground to disbelieve.

Hence, conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Period of detention suffered by the appellant during

investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive

sentence imposed upon him in terms of section 428 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

Lower court records along with copy of this judgment be sent

down at once to the learned trial court for necessary compliance.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to

the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.

I agree.

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

sdas/as/PA