Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Niranjan Murmu vs The State Of West Bengal on 8 December, 2022
ML. Sl. No. 86
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
C.R.A. 311 of 2012
Niranjan Murmu
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.
Mr. Anand Kesari, Adv.
Heard on : 08.12.2022
Judgment on : 08.12.2022
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
1.
Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
04.04.2012 & 05.04.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track 4th Court in-charge of Fast Track 5th Court, Malda in
Sessions Trial No.15(3) of 2011 arising out Sessions Case No. 80 of 2011
convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer
simple imprisonment for six months more.
2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the
effect that the appellant had married one Paraini Soren, daughter of
Gupin Soren 3-4 years prior to the incident. 4-5 months ago, Paraini
returned to her matrimonial home due to illness. Appellant wanted
Paraini to join him at the matrimonial home. On 14.11.2010 at around
6:00 P.M. there was a quarrel between Paraini and the appellant at
Nakail Hat. Appellant threatened that he would teach Paraini a lesson.
In the night of 14.11.2010, appellant set fire in the room where Paraini
was sleeping with her two aunts viz. Talamoi Soren and Makai Soren.
3. Gupin Soren, father of Paraini was sleeping in the veranda.
Hearing hue and cry he woke up. With the help of others, fire was
extinguished. Paraini, Talamoi and Makai were rescued. Paraini stated
appellant had set fire in the room.
4. Tumkui Hembram (PW7), a neighbour had seen the appellant
flee from the spot.
5. Injured victims were shifted to Malda Sadar Hospital. Paraini
was declared dead. On the next day, Talamoi and Makai also succumbed
to their injuries in the hospital.
6. Her uncle, Munsi Soren (PW1) lodged written complaint
resulting in registration of Habibpur Police Station Case No.187 dated
15.11.2010 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and charge was
framed under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife Paraini Soren
and aunts-in-law viz. Talamoi Soren and Makai Soren. Appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution
examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.
8. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned
judgment and order dated 04.04.2012 & 05.04.2012 convicted and
sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
9. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned advocate for the
appellant submits that no one saw the appellant set fire in the room. He
has been falsely implicated out of mere suspicion. Paraini suffered third
degree burn injuries. She was not in a position to talk. Her dying
declaration ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. PW7, who claimed to
have seen the appellant run away from the spot, is also an unreliable
witness. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.
10. Ms. Faria Hossain with Mr. Anand Kesari learned Advocates
for the State submits there was matrimonial discord between the
appellant and his wife Paraini. On the fateful day around 6:00 P.M.,
appellant had threatened Paraini at Nakail Hat. Thereafter, he set fire in
the room resulting in the death of Paraini and her aunts viz. Talamoi
Soren and Makai Soren. Paraini made dying declaration which is
reflected in the FIR. PW7 saw the appellant running away from the spot.
These circumstances clearly establish the prosecution case beyond
doubt.
11. PW1 (Munsi Soren) is the uncle of Paraini and the de-facto
complainant. He deposed appellant was married to Paraini. Four months
ago, she returned to her parental home due to illness. On the fateful day
in the evening at 6:00 P.M., appellant quarreled with Paraini at Nakail
Hat. That night Paraini was sleeping with her aunts viz. Talamoi Soren
and Makai Soren in the room. Her father, Gupin Soren and his wife were
sleeping in the veranda. PW1 woke up upon hearing the cries of Paraini
and others. He saw the room was burning. He tried to extinguish the
fire. Victims were brought out of the room. Paraini stated appellant had
set fire in the room. They were removed to the hospital. He lodged
written complaint which was scribed by Fulen Mondal (PW2).
12. PW8 (Gupin Soren) is the father of Paraini. He has
corroborated his brother (PW1). He deposed hearing hue and cry he
woke up. The room was in flames. Paraini, Talamoi and Makai were
rescued. Paraini stated the appellant had set the room on fire. They were
removed to hospital.
13. PW6 (Talamoyee Kisku) is the wife of Gupin. She corroborated
her husband.
14. PW2 (Fulen Mondal) is a neighbour. Hearing hue and cry, he
came to the spot. He deposed Paraini made a dying declaration
implicating the appellant. He scribed the FIR.
15. PW7 (Tumkui Hembram) is a neighbour and a very vital
witness. He deposed on the fateful night around 11:30 P.M. he had come
out of his house to urinate. In the flash of torch light, he saw the
appellant running away. Soon thereafter, he received news that the
house of Gupin was in flames. He came to the spot and heard the dying
declaration of Paraini. He stated Paraini, though weak, was in her
senses and able to speak.
16. These are the witnesses of fact.
17. PW12 (Dr. Bablu Soren) and PW15 (Bisweswar Saha) are the
medical witnesses.
18. PW12 conducted post-mortem over the bodies of Paraini,
Talamoi Soren and Makai Soren. He found extensive third degree burn
injuries on Paraini. He opined death was due to effects of ante mortem
burn injuries. He noted first and second degree burn injuries over the
bodies of Talamoi Soren and Makai Soren. He proved the post-mortem
reports, Exts.12, 13 & 14 respectively.
19. PW15 (Bisweswar Saha) is a medical officer who was attached
to Malda District Hospital. He deposed on 15.11.2010 at around 3:30
A.M., Talamoi Soren and Makai Soren were admitted in the hospital.
They died on the next day i.e. 16.11.2010. The patients were admitted
with burn injuries. Percentage of burn was approximately 80% to 85% of
total body surface area. They were in critical condition. Though they
were in condition to speak, they were reluctant to give history of burn
injuries. He proved the bed-head tickets of Talamoi and Makai (Exts.17
& 18 respectively).
20. Inquest over the bodies was held by PW9 (Souvik Patra), PW10
(Sipra Roy) and PW11 (Dilip Kr. Sen).
21. PW16 (Debabrata Chakrabarti) is the Investigating Officer. He
came to the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch map. He
collected the records relating to inquest. He seized articles from the
place of occurrence. He examined witnesses. He forwarded Baha Tudu
and Tumkui Hembram for recording statements before the Magistrate
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted
charge-sheet.
22. Analysis of the aforesaid evidence would show that the
prosecution case primarily hinges on the dying declaration of Paraini
Soren.
23. Mr. Bhattacharya has strongly assailed the dying declaration
on the ground Paraini had suffered third degree burn injuries all over
her body including face. Under such circumstances it was not possible
for her to make a statement. The other two victims who suffered lesser
injuries and died on the next day kept mum with regard to the incident.
24. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid
submissions. PWs. 1 to 8 have unequivocally stated upon rescuing the
victims Paraini stated her husband i.e. appellant herein had set fire to
the room. PW7 further clarified Paraini though in a weak condition, was
in her senses and able to speak. No suggestion was put to witnesses
including the post-mortem doctor (PW12) on behalf of the defence that
due to injuries Paraini was not in a fit state to make statement. Hence, I
am inclined to hold that Paraini was in her senses and in a fit condition
to make the dying declaration. This incriminating circumstance also
finds place in the FIR lodged by PW1 immediately after the incident.
25. It is contended the aunts did not disclose the incident in the
hospital. Appellant was Paraini's husband. Evidence has come on record
all was not well between the couple. 4-5 days ago owing to illness
Paraini returned to her parental home. In the evening of the fateful day
appellant had a quarrel and threatened her at Nakail Hat. Under such
circumstances it is most probable that Paraini noticed the appellant who
had stealthily come and set fire in the room where she had retired for
the night with her aunts. Her aunts were already sleeping and hence
were unaware of the identity of the miscreant. As a consequence, they
were unable to come out with the history of burns in the hospital.
26. Moreover, truthfulness of the dying declaration is fortified
through the evidence of PW7. PW7 is a neighbour and had gone out to
relieve himself around 11:30 P.M. In the flash of torch light he saw the
appellant running away. Admittedly appellant is a resident of a different
village. His presence at the village at the time of occurrence is
established and corroborates the truthfulness of the dying declaration of
Paraini.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the conviction and
sentence of the appellant.
28. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
29. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during
investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive
sentence imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
30. Lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be
sent down at once to the learned trial Court for necessary action.
31. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to
the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
akd/tkm/PA
