Badsha Mandal vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2015 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/19

GAHC010043762017




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.A./387/2017

            BADSHA MANDAL
            S/O LATE JAFAR MONDAL, R/O VILL. NO. 1 SALABILA, P.O. AMBARI, P.S.
            MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.



            VERSUS


            THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR
            REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM

            2:AMIR ALI

             S/O MD. MAJAM ALI
             R/O VILL. NO. 2 SALABILA
             P.O. DAGGHAR
             P.S. MANIKPUR
             DIST. BONGAIGAON
             ASSAM
             PIN 78338



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.M H TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI Page No.# 2/19

Date of hearing : 07.06.2022.

Date of judgment :        07.06.2022.


                             JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

(Suman Shyam, J)

Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have

also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing

the State. Mr. M. I. Hussain, learned counsel is present on behalf of the

informant/respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26.07.2017 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, Assam in connection with Sessions Case

No.25(M)/2016 whereby, the sole appellant was convicted under Sections 302/201 of

the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of his wife and also for

destruction of evidence so as to screen the actual offender. Consequently, the

learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon had sentenced the appellant to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default

stipulation for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The

appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and

to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation for committing the offence punishable

under Section 201 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the appellant, who is the husband of

the deceased, had an affair with another woman whom he wanted to marry and Page No.# 3/19

therefore, with a view to fulfill his aforesaid desire the appellant had inflicted grievous

injury on the body of his wife Sabia Khatun leading to her death. Thereafter, without

informing the police, the appellant, with the help of his near and dear ones had

hastily buried the dead body so as to remove the evidence of homicidal death of his

wife.

4. On 10.10.2015, Md. Amir Ali had lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge

of Manikpur Police Station reporting the incident. In the F.I.R. the name of the

appellant has been mentioned as the accused person. Further the F.I.R. has also

mentioned that the incident had taken place on 09.10.2015. On receipt of the

aforesaid ejahar Manikpur P.S. Case No.151/2015 was registered under Sections

302/201 of the IPC and the matter was entrusted to Inspector Dilip Dutta for carrying

out investigation. On completion of investigation the I.O. had submitted charge-sheet

against the accused, based on which, the learned trial court had framed charge

against the appellant under Sections 302/201 of the IPC. The charge was read over

and explained to the accused/appellant to which, he had claimed innocence. As

such, the matter went up for trial.

5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to

bring home the charge the prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses

including the doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead

body (PW-10), the Executive Magistrate who had held the inquest on the dead body

(PW-11) and the I.O. (PW-12) who had conducted investigation and submitted

charge-sheet. The case of defence side was one of total denial. In his statement Page No.# 4/19

recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant/ accused had not only

denied his involvement but had also taken the plea of alibi by stating that on the

intervening night he was not at home but he had gone to the house of his uncle

Mazid Mandal. On returning to his house he went out for fishing at around 2.00 a.m.

and then he went to Nagari Bazar where his younger son had come to meet him at

about 6.45 a.m. and had informed him about the death of his wife. Thereafter, he

had gone home.

6. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge had found the appellant

guilty of committing the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 of the IPC and

sentenced him as aforesaid.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2017 Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel

for the appellant, has argued that there are material contradictions in the statements

of the witnesses. Since there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and therefore, the

prosecution was bound to establish the charge brought against the

accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence

which they failed to do in this case. According to Mr. Sikdar, failure on the part of the

prosecution to examine as witnesses, the inmates of the house of the accused

including the daughter-in-law of the deceased who had first raised the hue and cry

after noticing the condition of her mother-in-law (deceased), as well as the younger

son of the deceased/accused, who had informed his father about the death of his

mother, has left a wide gap in the prosecution story, the benefit of which must be

given to the accused. It is also the submission of Mr. Sikdar that in a case of Page No.# 5/19

circumstantial evidence the prosecution was required to prove the motive behind

the crime which they have failed to do in this case. In support of his above arguments

Mr. Sikdar has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case

of Shatrughna Baban Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021)1 SCC 596

and Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021)5 SCC 624.

8. Responding to the above submission, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, Assam, has argued that all the incriminating circumstances appearing

against the accused/appellant has been firmly established in this case based on

cogent circumstantial evidence. According to the learned Addl. P.P., the prosecution

has not only succeeded in establishing that the incident took place inside the house

of the accused where the appellant and the deceased were ordinarily residing as

husband and wife but it has also been proved that the appellant was present in the

house at the time of the occurrence. But the accused has failed to offer any

plausible explanation as to how his wife had suffered such grievous injuries. Moreover,

submits Ms. Jahan, the medical evidence clearly establishes the homicidal death of

the deceased and it has also been brought on record through the prosecution

witnesses that the accused was having an extra marital relation with another woman

whom he wanted to marry. The learned Addl. P.P. has further argued that in his 313

statement the accused has made deliberate incorrect statements thereby indicating

that he was trying to conceal the truth. Therefore, even if there are minor

contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses the same would not have any

material bearing in the outcome of this case.

Page No.# 6/19

9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing

for both the sides and have also carefully gone through the materials available on

record. Since the impugned judgment of the learned trial court has been assailed

primarily on the ground that the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in the

eye of law due to want of evidence available on record, we deem it necessary to

briefly refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses during trial.

10. As noted above, Md. Amir Ali is the informant in this case. He was examined by

the prosecution as PW-1. This witness is also the nephew of the deceased Sabia

Khatun. PW-1 has deposed that the appellant was the husband of the deceased i.e.

his "pehi" (aunt) and he has been harassing his aunt since their marriage. On

09.10.2015 at about 5.30 a.m. he had received information from some co-villagers

that his aunt has died. He went to the house of the accused/appellant situated at

No.1 Salabila and found that many persons had gathered there before his arrival. He

had seen blood oozing out from the nose and mouth of his aunt and her hands were

lying in such a fashion as if those were broken. He had also seen blood in the chest of

his aunt. As such, he suspects that his aunt had been murdered. PW-1 has further

stated that he had made a suggestion to inform the police about the incident but

without paying any heed to his suggestion, the accused had buried the dead body

of his aunt in a hurry. PW-1 has further deposed that Ext-1 is the ejahar lodged by him

and Ext-1(1) was his signature. The ejahar was written by Mostafa Ahmed, which was

read over to him, wherein he had put his signature. After the ejahar was lodged,

police came and exhumed the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination.

According to PW-1, there were lots of blood even in the graveyard. During cross-

Page No.# 7/19

examination the evidence of this witness has remained intact.

11. Md. Mazzel Haque was examined as PW-2. This witness has also deposed to

the effect that on 09.10.2015, at about 5.30 a.m. while he was going to the market he

came to know that wife of Badsha Mandal viz., Sabia had died. Then he went to the

house of Badsha and saw that many persons had gathered there. On reaching there,

he had seen Badsha Mandal driving people out of his house. When people came out

of the house, he went inside and saw the dead body. He saw that blood was oozing

out from the eyes of the deceased. PW-2 has stated that he had also seen bleeding

on the left side of the back of the head and injury on the chest of the deceased.

After that, he came out of the house. He had asked the people present there not to

bury the dead body and to arrange for post-mortem examination and then he left for

the house of Amir (PW-1). However, the family members of the accused had buried

the dead body without following the usual procedure of giving proper information as

regards the death of the person through the microphone installed in the mosque.

When Amir Ali lodged an ejahar with the Police Station the police came and

exhumed the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. In his cross-

examination PW-2 has deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence he had

found 50/60 persons present there and there were more women than man. He had

reached the place of occurrence at about 5.30 a.m. and stayed there for 10

minutes. The evidence of PW-2 also could not be shaken by the defence side during

his cross-examination.

12. Mst. Saleha Khatun was examined as PW-3. She is the sister-in-law of deceased Page No.# 8/19

Sabia Khatun. PW-3 has deposed that Sabia Khatun got married to accused Badsha

Mandal. She came to know about the death of Sabia from Amir Ali who came to

their house and informed about the occurrence. On reaching the house of the

accused she had seen that the dead body of Sabia was lying on the bed and there

was bleeding from the eyes, mouth and ears. She had also seen that the belly and

neck of the deceased was swollen and her tongue was sticking out. The hands were

also lying in a stretched condition. Some women including herself had washed the

dead body of Sabia. While washing the dead body she had seen blood oozing out

from the left side of the head and private parts of the victim. Having noticed such

injuries she thought that someone had killed Sabia. She suspected that accused

Badsha Mandal had killed Sabia on the bed. The dead body was buried in haste with

the help of a few people. Her son Amir Ali lodged an ejahar. Police came and

exhumed the dead body. This witness has also remained firm during her cross-

examination.

13. PW-4, Mustafa Ahmed is an advocate by profession and is the scribe of the

ejahar. In his deposition, he has confirmed that he had written the ejahar Ext-1 and

the same was read over to the informant after which, he had put his signature

therein. According to PW-4, at around 7.00 a.m. on 09.10.2015, he had heard that the

wife of the accused had died. He had gone to the house of the accused but did not

see the dead body as the same was buried between 12.30 p.m. and 1.00 p.m. The

PW-4 has further deposed that some people had obstructed the burial of the body

on account of the fact that some women, who had washed the body, had noticed

injury marks in the dead body. Accordingly, it was suggested that police be informed Page No.# 9/19

but instead of informing the police, the dead body was buried in haste. The following

day, he had written the ejahar as per the version of the informant. PW-4 has also

stated that he was present when the dead body was exhumed and that he had

seen injuries on many parts of the dead body.

14. PW-5, Manikjan Khatun has also deposed that she had noticed injury marks on

the dead body and that she was aware of the fact that accused Badsha had an

affair with another woman. PW-5 has also deposed that the accused had been

torturing his wife since before and the incident took place since he wanted to marry

another woman. During her cross-examination PW-5 has, however, admitted that she

had heard about the affair of the accused with another woman from others but did

not see anything herself.

15. Smt. Moriam Bewa was examined as PW-6. This witness has also deposed in

similar lines by stating that on receiving the information about the death of the

deceased having been killed by the accused, she went to the house of the accused

and saw that blood was oozing out from the eyes of the dead body. She had also

seen injuries on the back side of the head and back of the deceased. While washing

the dead body as per the religious customs, she had also noticed injuries on the

body. According to PW-6, the accused/ appellant wanted to marry another woman

from Bashbari and hence he had killed his wife. It appears from her testimony that the

deceased was her niece. In her cross-examination PW-6 has stated that Maleka, Fulu,

Hamed's wife Saira Khatun, Sale were amongst the women who were there with her

at the time of washing the dead body.

Page No.# 10/19

16. PW-7, Saira Khatun has corroborated the version of PW-6 and has deposed

that when the wearing apparels of the dead body was removed for the purpose of

washing the same, she had seen blood oozing out from the eyes, mouth and genitals

of the deceased. She had also seen injuries on the back side of the head and the

back of the deceased. This witness had also stated that she had heard about the

affair that the accused was having with another woman and that is why he had killed

the deceased.

17. Md. Abbas Ali is another person from the locality and he was examined as PW-

8. This witness has testified that on the date of the incident, at around 8.00 a.m. he

had heard from some people that Badsha Mandal had killed his wife. Then he went

to the house of Badsha and on reaching there, saw that blood was oozing out from

the eyes, mouth and nose of the deceased. He had also seen that the neck of the

deceased was swollen. After having seen the dead body he returned home. Later

police exhumed the dead body and he had seen blood even in the grave. He

suspects that someone had killed the deceased. This witness has further deposed that

he had heard that there was quarrel between the accused and his wife over the

issue of former's affair with another woman.

18. Md. Usman Gani is an important witness in this case. He had noticed the

abnormal demeanour of the accused in the morning of the occurrence around the

time when the occurrence had reportedly taken place. This witness was examined by

the prosecution as PW-9. According to PW-9, on the date of occurrence, at around

5.50 a.m. he went to Nagarik Bazar situated at No.1 Salabila so as to have a cup of Page No.# 11/19

tea. At that time accused/appellant Badsha Mandal was sitting there. He (Badsha)

had three cups of tea and thereafter, went to the hardware shop and smoked three

beedis. Thereafter, Badsha again returned to the tea stall and took another two cups

of tea. The accused was seen moving around here and there in a state of

restlessness. After a while his youngest son came to the shop and informed that his

mother had died. On hearing that, the accused scolded his son by saying that his

mother had not died as he had come to the market from his house just a little back.

Thereafter, Badsha Mandal went to his house. PW-9 had further deposed that he also

followed Badsha to his house. As he entered the house, Badsha had switched off the

electric light of his house. He had seen bloodstained clothes lying on the floor. When

he tried to examine the blood stained clothes, the accused, under the pretence of

weeping out of grief, laid himself on the clothes so as to prevent PW-9 from examining

the same. He had seen injury marks on the neck below the head of the dead body of

the deceased. Having noticed blood oozing out from the nose, mouth and eyes of

the dead body he came out of the house and left the place. On 11.10.2015 police

had exhumed the dead body and held inquest on it. PW-9 has further stated that he

had seen blood in the grave and the face of the deceased was swollen. In his cross-

examination PW-9 has admitted that the police had not recorded his statement nor

did he say the entire facts to the police which he had stated in his evidence in the

Court. This witness has denied any enmity between the accused and himself. This

witness has also denied the suggestion made by the defence side to the effect that

he had deposed falsely before the court.

19. Dr. Gopal Ch. Ray was the Senior Medical & Health Officer on duty at the Page No.# 12/19

Bongaigaon Civil Hospital on 11.10.2015 when the dead body of the deceased was

brought there for conducting post-mortem examination. The doctor was examined as

PW-10. He has proved the post-mortem report Ext-3 by identifying his signature.

According to PW-10, the death of the deceased was caused due to intra cranial

haemorrhage and damage of cerebral area due to head injury and was ante-

mortem in nature. PW-10 has also deposed before the court by bringing on record

the nature of injuries reflected in the post-mortem report which includes laceration -

1" x ¼" x full thickness of scalp with haematoma, behind the right ear over right

parietal bone and also brown coloured bruise over right hand (arm) - 2" x 1 ½" , right

thigh - 2" x 1 ½" and left thigh - 1 ½" x 1 ½". During his cross-examination the PW-10

has clarified that owing to oversight the time of post-mortem examination conducted

on 12.10.2015 was mentioned as 9.30 p.m. instead of 9.30 a.m. PW-10 has admitted

that the head injury sustained by the deceased may be caused due to falling on

hard substance with great force.

20. PW-11, Sri Gokul Ch. Brahma was the Executive Magistrate -cum- Election

Officer, Bijni who had conducted inquest over the dead body of Sabia Khatun on

11.10.2015. PW-11 has proved the inquest report Ext-2 by identifying his signature

therein as Ext-2(3). According to PW-11, there was one bruise mark in the upper legs

just below the hips and thighs and blood was oozing out from the thigh.

21. PW-12, Sri Dilip Dutta was the Investigating Officer (IO) in this case. This witness

has deposed that on 10.10.2015 while he was on duty as the Officer-in-Charge of

Manikpur Police Station, informant Amir Ali had lodged a written ejahar at around Page No.# 13/19

9.00 p.m. alleging that his paternal aunt has been found dead on a bed at 5.30 a.m.

of 09.10.10.2015. The I.O. has confirmed that Ext-1 is the ejahar lodged by the PW-1.

PW-2 has further deposed that on receipt of the ejahar he had registered a case and

took charge of the investigation. In course of investigation, he had visited the place

of occurrence, examined the witnesses and had drawn sketch map of the place of

occurrence. He had also made a request to the SDO (Civil), Bijni to get the dead

body exhumed and accordingly the body was exhumed on 11.10.2015 in presence

of Executive Magistrate Sri G. C. Brahma and inquest on the dead body was also

held. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. PW-12 has

stated that he had seen injuries on the chest and on the back of the deceased.

During his cross-examination the I.O. has replied that the ejahar had been lodged

one day after the incident but there is no mention in the ejahar about the reason for

delay. The dead body was exhumed on 11.10.2015 at about 11.00/12.00 a.m. (sic).

The dead body was found covered in a piece of white cloth and there were black

marks on some portion of that cloth, but he did not seize the piece of cloth nor was

the same sent for FSL examination. During his cross-examination the I.O. has also

brought on record the contradictions/improvements in the testimonies of PWs-2, 3, 6,

7 and 8 by making the following statements.

"PW-2 Mozzel Hoque did not state to me that he had seen injury on the head of the deceased; that Badsha Mandal had driven out the public from his house and that on being asked by uncle Abdul Mazid, accused person's son Abdul Kasem replied that he had heard commotion at night.

PW-3 Saleha Khatun did not state to me that she had seen blood on the chest of deceased, but she stated to me that she had seen blood all over her Page No.# 14/19

body.

PW-6 Marium Bewa did not state to me that the accused had forbidden Sabia Khatun from visiting their house.

PW-7 Saira Khatun did not state to me that she had seen injuries on the ear, back, genitals and backside of the head of the deceased.

PW-8 Abbas Ali did not state to me that when police had exhumed the dead body, he had seen blood (in the grave); that three days prior to the incident, there had been a quarrel between the accused and his wife over the issue of the former's affair with another woman and that the accused had assaulted his wife. It is not a fact that I submitted the charge sheet without investigating into the matter properly. It is not a fact that the statement that the accused, with the aid of some of his inmates, forcibly buried the dead body, is false. It is not a fact that the accused buried the dead body by informing all concerned."

22. From a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record it clearly appears

that the death of the deceased came to light at around 5.30 a.m. on 09.10.2015.

From the testimony of PW-9 it has also come out that around that time, the accused

was seen at the Nagarik Bazar frenetically sipping cups of tea, one after another and

smoking beedis. It was at that time the youngest son of the accused came to the

Bazar and informed him about the death of her mother. It appears from the evidence

of PW-9 that instead of expressing any surprise on receipt of such information the

accused had started scolding his son with a view to deny the occurrence and

thereafter, he left for home. Even on reaching home the accused had switched off

the electric lights which was obviously with the intent of reducing the visibility inside

the room. The PW-9 had not only seen injury marks on the dead body of the victim Page No.# 15/19

but had also deposed about blood stained clothes lying on the floor. It further

appears from the testimony of PW-9 that he was the first person outside the family of

the deceased who had reached the place of occurrence and had seen the body of

the victim.

23. From the statements made by PW-9 it transpires that the I.O. had not recorded

the statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is evident that

PW-9 had deposed for the first time about certain facts before the Court. Ordinarily,

the testimony of witnesses who depose before the Court stating facts for the first time

is not taken on face value. However, in the instant case, we find that there is no cross-

examination of the PW-9 on the vital statements made by him regarding the conduct

of the accused on that morning and what he had seen after reaching the house of

the accused in the morning of 09.10.2015. Moreover, the fact that the accused was

at the Nagarik Bazar at around 5.50 a.m. on the date of the incident and that his

youngest son had came there to inform him about the death of his mother is

consistent even with the explanation furnished by the accused under Section 313

Cr.P.C. and therefore, the same, in our opinion, lends sufficient credence to the

testimony of PW-9. The testimony of PW-9 is also free from any contradiction. We are,

therefore, inclined to believe that the PW-9 was speaking the truth before the court.

24. In so far as the homicidal death of the victim is concerned, a perusal of the

post-mortem report as well as the testimony of PW-10 leaves no manner of doubt that

the deceased had suffered a homicidal death. The medical evidence finds due

corroboration from the ocular evidence.

Page No.# 16/19

25. The informant PW-1 has categorically deposed that there was blood oozing

out from the eyes, mouth and nose of the deceased and that he had also seen other

injury marks on the dead body. The aforesaid version of the PW-1 not only finds

adequate support from the post-mortem report but is also duly corroborated by all

other witnesses including PWs-2, 8 and 9 who appear to be independent witnesses.

26. There is also reliable evidence available on record which goes to show that by

defying the suggestions coming from persons present there to inform the police, the

accused had hurriedly buried the dead body with the help of his family members. If

there were injury marks in the body and blood was oozing out from nose, eyes and

mouth besides there being other injury marks on other parts of the body of the

deceased, it is difficult to believe that unless the accused had something to conceal,

he would resist the suggestion made by the villagers to inform the police. Such

conduct of the accused undoubtedly raises a grave suspicion about his guilty mind

and the same, viewed in the light of the other facts and circumstances of the case

brought on record through the prosecution witnesses, clearly points towards the guilt

of the accused.

27. We also find from a close scrutiny of the statement made by the accused

under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he had taken the plea of alibi by stating that on

the preceding night, he had gone to the house of his uncle Mazed Mandal and

thereafter, he went to Nagarik Bazar for selling fish. Law is firmly settled that the

burden of proving the plea of alibi is clearly on the defence side. However, in the

present case, the accused had not made any effort to establish the plea of alibi.

Page No.# 17/19

28. The evidence on record goes to show that the accused was living with his

deceased wife along with four children and there was no outsider present in the

house on the day of the occurrence. Since the testimony of PW-9 is found to be

consistent with the evidence of other witnesses who had deposed that the dead

body was seen inside the house of the accused with injury marks in the body, it was

incumbent upon the accused to offer explanation as to the circumstances under

which the victim had suffered such bodily injuries leading to her death. Such

explanation ought to have been offered by the accused in discharge of his burden

under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. However, as noticed above, in the present

case the accused has not only failed to offer any plausible explanation but has also

taken a stand which is not only wavering in nature but is also mutually contradictory

thereby, projecting a picture that the accused was trying to conceal the truth.

29. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution through PWs-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,

8 and 9 corroborates each other's version and we do not find any material

contradictions in their evidence which could be seen to have gone into the root of

the matter. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, in our opinion, establishes

beyond reasonable doubt that it was none other than the accused/appellant who

had caused bodily injury to his wife inside the house in the wee hours of 09.10.2015.

After the incident, he went out of the house and came to Nagarik Bazar when he

was seen by the PW-9 in a restless condition. When the fact regarding the death of his

wife was brought to his notice by his youngest son, the accused had rushed back

home and with the intention of concealing his misdeeds, he had got the body buried

hurriedly without informing the police. Later on, when the dead body was exhumed Page No.# 18/19

and sent for post-mortem it was established that the deceased had died a homicidal

death.

30. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the plea that delay in lodging

the ejahar in this case raises a suspicion about the actual circumstances under which

the incident had happened. Therefore, the accused be granted acquittal on benefit

of doubt. We are afraid, such submission of Mr. Sikdar does not commend for

acceptance by this Court. Firstly, the learned trial court has dealt with this issue. Upon

appreciation of evidence available on record the learned trial court was of the view

that there were reasons for delay in lodging the ejehar. Nothing has been urged

before us to demonstrate that the view of the trial court was erroneous on the facts

and circumstances of the case. Secondly, there is convincing evidence available on

record to show that the deceased had died a homicidal death inside the house of

the accused/appellant and there was also a clear attempt on the part of the

accused not only to suppress the incident but also to destroy the evidence by

removing the dead body without informing the police. Therefore, delay of one day in

lodging the ejahar, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered

view, would not cast any serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story.

Rather, we find that the prosecution story is consistent with the evidence brought on

record, which is sufficient to prove the murder charge brought against the

accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

31. For the reasons indicated herein above, we are of the view that the decisions

relied upon by Mr. Sikdar would be of no assistance to his client in the facts and Page No.# 19/19

circumstances of the case. We accordingly, hold that the appeal is devoid of any

merit and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the

accused/appellant stand affirmed.

Registry to send back the LCR.

                               JUDGE                         JUDGE

T U Choudhury/Sr.PS




Comparing Assistant