Arjun Singh vs The State of West Bengal

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against an order of conviction u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine with default clause passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in connection with Sessions Trial No. 5/04. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned counsel on behalf of the State. Perused the impugned judgment, the deposition of the witnesses and other materials on record.

The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: On May 31, 2001 at about 4 p.m. in the afternoon the de facto complainant Gour Singh (PW/1) was intimated by one Bhuban Singh (PW/6) that his elder sister Gandha Singh was killed by her husband. On receipt of such news he at once rushed to the village Ghoratika where the matrimonial home of his elder sister was situated. Reaching at her matrimonial home he found that his sister was lying dead with bleeding injuries. On being asked by him as to how she died the appellant disclosed that out of anger he hit his wife with a shaal log on her head and that caused her death.

The aforesaid incident being reported to the Bandwan Police Station a specific case for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC was registered there and upon completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet for the self-same offence.

During the trial prosecution examined total 12 witnesses however defence examined none.

This is a case entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance that has been pitted against the appellant by the prosecution, is his extra-judicial confession made before the villager in which the appellant admitted that he killed his wife by hitting her on her head with a shaal log, following a quarrel took place between them over the preparation of meal and the next circumstance is the handing over the said shaal log to the police by the appellant and the evidence of the post-mortem doctor that injuries found on the dead body of the victim could have been caused by an object like shaal log.

Either during the trial or during the hearing of this appeal it is not disputed from the side of the accused that victim died due to the injuries found on her head and the same were anti-mortem and homicidal in nature. In this case the de facto complainant PW/1 was declared hostile during the trial. The PW/2 is the scribe of the FIR. According to him, the appellant in presence of other villagers admitted his guilt and on being asked by the police brought out the offending shaal log. He also claimed that at the time of the seizure of the log the said log was blood-stained. The PW/3 is the friend of PW/1. He also deposed about the extra-judicial confession of the appellant and he simply stated the police after coming there seized the said shaal log. The PW/4 Gour Singh also in his evidence deposed about such extra-judicial confession of the appellant and disclosed that victim was hit by the appellant with the said shaal log following some quarrel over the taking of meal. Similarly, PW/5 Tribhuvan Singh, PW/6 Bhuban Singh, PW/7 Nilmohan Mahato, PW/8 Kunja Bihari Singh, PW/9 Naba Kishore Hansda are the witnesses who came to learn about the extra-judicial confession of the appellant from the other villagers. PW/10 Dr. D.K. Basak is the post-mortem doctor. During the course of cross-examination of the witnesses nothing could have been brought out from them which may justify us to disbelieve their evidence on the question of extra-judicial confession in which the accused admitted his guilt. However, considering the prosecution case that deceased was assaulted by the appellant following some quarrel over the preparation of meal, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to alter the order of conviction to one u/s 304 part I IPC. Accordingly, we convert the conviction of the appellant from u/s 302 IPC to u/s 304 Part I IPC and for such conviction he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

The appellant shall be entitled to set up u/s 428 CrPC. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed with the alteration of conviction and sentence as aforesaid.

The office is directed to communicate this order to the appellant at once. The lower Court record also be sent down.

Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

Subal Baidya, J.

I agree