Minati Rani Kotal vs State of West Bengal

J.N. Patel, C. J.

In Sessions Trial No. 1/July /1989 (Sessions Case No. 68/1988) the appellant/accused was tried on a charge of having committed murder of Suryomoni Dutta alias Boroma at No. 22A, Pashupati Bose Lane within the jurisdiction of Shyampukur police station thereby committed offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and by judgment and order dated 19.9.1990 was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta which is under challenge in this appeal. In nutshell, it is the prosecution case that the deceased Suryomoni Dutta alias Boroma was residing in a room at 22A, Pashupati Bose Lane, Calcutta. The appellant/accused used to reside in the adjoining room along with her family members. On the day of the incident i.e. 10.9.1986 the brother-in-law of the appellant/accused, Santosh Kotal (P.W. 6) who was dealing in fish had gone to market in the early morning at about 5.30 a.m. and at about 9.00-9.30 a.m. Smt. Sulekha Das alias Bula (P.W. 10), a neighbour of the appellant/accused was told by the appellant/accused to call her brother-in-law, Santosh Kotal, so she went to the market and informed Santosh Kotal (P.W. 6) that the appellant/accused is calling him. On this, Santosh Kotal came to his house and found appellant/accused was in a violent mood and having asked her what had happened, she told him that she has finished everything and that she has committed the murder of Suryomoni Dutta alias Baroma who was their co-tenant in the same house. On this, Santosh Kotal (PW6) went to call his brother Sukumar Kotal and as he was not there informed the incident to his wife Jharna Manna and his cousin Manju Saha. They all accompanied him and went to the place of occurrence where Jharna Rani Manna (PW3) noticed that Minoti Rani was wearing a saree inside her drawing room and came with big eyes (denotes aggressiveness) and when she (Jharna Rani) asked her (Minati) what have you done then she replied that she has killed Baroma (Baroma ke mere phelechi). On being questioned she also replied she (Baroma) has killed my husband so she (Minati) killed her (Aamar Sami ke mere pheleche tai ami mere phelechi). Then she tied her up with a gamcha to a Nora pole. Someone informed the police. The police arrived at the place of occurrence led by Inspector, J. Biswas (P.W. 18). They went inside the house and saw an old lady lying injured in a pool of blood on the floor, police recorded the statement of Jharna Rani Manna which was treated as First Information Report (Exbt. 3). The injured was removed to R.G. Kar Hospital. The police officer examined the witnesses at the place. Photographs of the place of occurrence were taken and alamats came to be seized. Blood stained and controlled earth from the floor of the bed room of the appellant/accused came to be collected. The victim was found to be dead. The body was thereafter sent for postmortem examination. After completing the investigation chargesheet was filed. The case was committed for trial.

The appellant/accused was charged for committing murder of Suryomoni Dutta. She pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and in the alternative a plea of unsoundness mind was also pressed into service.

In the trial, the prosecution examined Jharna Rani Manna, complainant (P.W. 3), Santosh Kotal alias Kachi (P.W. 6), Smt. Parul Das (P.W. 9), Smt. Sulekha Das (P.W. 10) along with persons who had witnessed the seizure of alamats. Dr. S.K. Biswas (P.W. 16), Medical Officer to whom the injured was taken and was declared dead and Dr. A.K. Saha (P.W. 15) who conducted the post-mortem examination were examined. P.W.s 12, 14 and 17 were offered for cross-examination.

P.W. 1, Adhip Krishna Banerjee, who had drawn a sketch map (Exbt. 1). Molla Safiul Alam (P.W. 2) who produced photographs in the Court consist of six negatives marked ''X'' and six photo prints marked ''y'' in support of the case.

On conclusion of trial, the Sessions Court found the appellant/accused guilty of having committed murder of Suryomoni Dutta alias Baroma and did not accept the plea of unsoundness of mind and sentenced the appellant/accused to suffer imprisonment for life.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant/accused.

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence and that it is the appellant/accused alone could have committed the crime. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses particularly Jharna Rani Manna (P.W.) is unreliable witness as she has made substantial improvement in her evidence before the Court that the appellant/accused tried to throttle her. Santosh Kotal (P.W. 6) and Smt. Parul Das (P.W. 9) have falsely implicated her.

During the hearing of the appeal the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has filed an affidavit of the son of the appellant/accused so as to place on record certain prescriptions of medication given to the appellant/accused to show that she was suffering from Schizophrenia and submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that if it is found appellant /accused has committed the offence, she had no mens rea to commit murder as she was suffering from unsoundness of mind by referring to the evidence of P.W.s 3 and 6 as regards the conduct of the appellant/ accused who have stated in their evidence that the appellant /accused appeared insane and in a violent mood. Therefore, the Court ought to have considered the case of the appellant /accused u/s 84 of the Indian Penal Code and in support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dinoprosad Burman alias Sallan Burman vs. State of West Bengal [2003 C. Cr. L.R. (Cal) 847]. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant /accused that the so called extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and should not have been considered by the Court as evidence against the appellant/accused when there is no other evidence brought on record by the prosecution to support the prosecution case and the Court ought to have examined the evidence of the witnesses with great care and caution.

It is also submitted that even if it is accepted that the appellant/accused has assaulted the victim she had no intention to commit her murder and the prosecution having failed to prove that the appellant/accused has throttled and assaulted the victim with alamats i.e. Bati and Nora. Therefore, the appellant/accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

On the other hand, learned public prosecutor submitted that in so far as affidavit filed by the son of the appellant/accused is concerned as regards mental illness no evidence had been led by the appellant/accused by examining herself or any witness in support of her defence and such a plea of insanity was not taken before the Court. It is submitted that the appellant/accused was on bail during trial and at times sought exemption from personal appearance on ground of other illness and never claimed that she was suffering from any mental disease or unsoundness of mind. It is disputed that the prescriptions filed along with the affidavit cannot be considered as evidence and further all these are of the year 1987 onwards i.e. subsequent to the commission of the crime. Therefore, authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused do not support her case.

Learned public prosecutor submitted that though the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution has proved that the appellant/accused was alone in the house with the victim at the time of commission of the offence and had opportunity to commit the offence. It is further contended that she had a strong motive as the appellant/accused suspected that her husband has been killed by the said Baroma and inspite of the fact that P.W. 6, Santosh Kotal, younger brother of her deceased husband stated that the husband of the deceased committed suicide, in her statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure particularly in answer to Question 6 that Kachi Manna (P.W. 6) had further stated that her husband had committed suicide. She stated ''No'' her husband did not commit suicide.

It is submitted that considering the nature of injuries inflicted on the victim who had a strong motive to commit the crime the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant/accused has committed the murder.

Learned public prosecutor submitted that in this case P.W. 1, the police constable who prepared the sketch map has wrongly described the premises as 22B, Pashupati Bose Lane which does not cause any dent in the prosecution''s case as there is sufficient evidence brought on record through the witnesses as well as the police officers who reached the place of occurrence that the incident occurred at 22A, Pashupati Bose Lane and not 22B, Pashupati Bose Lane and it is not in dispute that the appellant/accused was residing at 22A, Pashupati Bose Lane, P.S. Shyampukur with her relatives and deceased Suryomoni Dutta used to reside as co-tenant with them in the adjoining room. Therefore, the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

The points arise for our determination are whether the death of Suryomoni Dutta was homicidal and who has committed the murder. So far as the first point is concerned Police Inspector, J. Biswas, (P.W. 18) on reaching the place of occurrence found one lady subsequently identified to be Suryamoni Dutta lying in a pool of blood on the floor. He removed the injured lady to R.G. Kar hospital through Sergeant Bhutia. Dr. S.K. Biswas, (P.W. 16) was the emergency Medical Officer on duty and on 10.9.1986 at about 11.26 a.m. he examined Suryo Moni Dutta aged about 70 years who was brought by Sergeant Koto Bhutia and one Naba Kumar Dey. On examination, the patient was found dead with multiple injuries on scalp and neck, blood stain face, neck and scalp. He issued attendance certificate (Ext. 5) and death certificate (Ext. 6). On receiving the information Inspector J. Biswas arranged for post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Suryomoni Dutta at N.R.S. Hospital on 11.9.1986. Dr. A.K. Saha (P.W. 15) held postmortem examination over the deadbody of Suryomoni Dutta aged about 70 years and found following injuries :

Ecchymoses somewhat reddish in colour (a) 1" x 1/2" to the right side of the upper of front of neck placed 1/2" placed close to the right of midline of the front of neck, a little above the upper border of the thyroid cartilage (b) 4 (four) ecchymoses each measuring 3/4" x 1/2" placed close to one another, one below the other directed obliquely downwards and outwards from a label a little below the upper border of the thyroid cartilage and 8/10" to the left midline of front of neck. On dissection extravasated clotted blood was found in the subcutaneous and underlying soft tissues underneath the ecchymoses noted above 3" x 2" on the right side and 4" x 2" on the left side of front of neck. On further dissection extravasated clotted blood was found in the outer surface of both thyroid cartilage and over right greater corner of the hyoid bone and fracture of the cricoid certilage more or less in the anterior midline.

2) Ecchymoses (a) 1" x 1/2" over left side of the lower lip (c) 2" x 2" around the left eye including the upper and lower eye lids (d) 2 1/2" x 2" around the left eye including the upper and lower eye lids.

3) Lacerated wound obliquely placed (a) 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep over the right forehead, 1" above medial and of the right eyebrow (b) 1 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep over the left forehead 1/2" above the lateral end of left eye brow, (c) 1" x 1/2" x muscle and bone over right parietal region of the scalp adjacent to midline of head over top of head (d) 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep over midline part of occipital region of the scalp (e) 1 x 1/2" x muscle deep over left parietal region of the scalp, 1 1/2" to the left of midline of head.

On dissection Haematome 9" x 6" all over the scalp and one fissured fracture 1 1/2" long underneath the wound No. 3(c) subdural haemorrhage all over the brain.

4) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 2/10" bone over bridge of nose P.25 with fracture nasal bone.

5) Haematoma (a) upper part of right ear - 1" x 1/2" (b) upper part of left ear 1 1/2" x 1/2".

6) Abrasion - left cheek 1" x 1/2".

7) On dissection extensive extravasated clotted blood was found over (a) 6" x 2" dorsum of left arm and forearm (b) 4" x 2" lateral aspect of left thigh (c) 8" x 4" over back of right chest and abdomen (d) 5" x 3" back of left chest.

8) Haematoma obliquely placed over (a) left anterior chest wall 7" x 4" (b) right anterior chest wall 6" x 4".

9) Fracture ribs left side 1st to 10th along anterior axillary line.

10) Lacerated lower lobe of left lung - 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1".

11) Fluid and clotted blood 200 C.C. in chest cavity.

12) Lacerated wound middle part of front of left leg- 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep with extravasated clotted blood.

Extravasated clotted blood in and around the wound

According to Dr. Saha (P.W. 15) death was due to throttling associated with other injuries ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Injury No. 3(c) on examination and dissection, Injury Nos. 9 and 10 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Those injuries might have been caused by blunt weapon like stone, nora or lathi. Shown a Nora (spice grinder) says the above injuries might have been caused by this Nora.

Therefore, there is no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Suryomoni Dutta''s death was homicidal.

The second and most important point is that who has committed the murder. The prosecution in order to establish the same examined Jharna Rani Manna (P.W. 3) relative of the appellant/accused, Santosh Kotal (P.W. 6), brother-in-law of the appellant/accused and one of the persons who gathered at the place of occurrence i.e. Smt. Parul Das (P.W. 9) to establish that the appellant/accused has committed the murder.

On the fateful day i.e. 10.9.1986 when Santosh Kotal (P.W. 6) brother-in-law of the appellant/accused went to the market in the morning as usual at about 5.00-5.30 a.m. At about 9.00-9.30 a.m. Smt. Sulekha Das (P.W. 10) informed him that the appellant/accused was calling him. Therefore, he went to the house and on reaching the house he found that the appellant/accused was in a violent mood and when he asked what happened she told him that she has finished everything. It has come in the evidence of Santosh Kotal that Suryomoni was their co-tenant in the same house and that the appellant/accused told him that she had committed the murder of Suryomoni Dutta alias Baroma and when he asked why did she commit the murder she had replied that Baroma killed her husband and that is why she had also killed Baroma. Then at once he went to inform his brother Sukumar Kotal at 22, Nandalal Bose Lane, Calcutta. As his brother was absent he narrated the incident to his wife and also his cousin Jharna Manna and Manju Saha. They all went to his house and at that time the accused rushed towards them in a violent mood and she was overpowered and tied up with a rope. The fact that Santosh was given a message by Sulekha has been stated by Sulekha (P.W. 10) in her evidence before the Court. P.W. 6, Santosh Kotal had gone to brother''s house and as his brother was not there Smt. Jharna Manna, wife of his brother accompanied him. P.W. 3 has in turn corroborated Santosh on having accompanied him to the house and she found the appellant/accused in a insane condition. She deposed that nobody could approach the appellant/accused. But she faced her. The accused attempted to throttle her but then she caught hold of her two hands and resisted her. She found Baroma in the house lying in an injured condition in her room. As people started assembling she kept the door of that room closed from outside.

The prosecution sought permission of the Court to declare the witness Jharna Rani (P.W. 3) hostile and cross-examine her as in her chief she did not support the prosecution of the fact that appellant/accused had made an extra-judicial confession to her. In cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that the appellant/accused told that she had committed the murder. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused in the presence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 3 and is also supported by P.W. 9 who had also reached the place of occurrence accompanied by the neighbours and found one lady lying in a tied condition with the help of Gamcha who she identified as Minati Kotal and on being asked by them Minati told that she struck Surya Moni.

The fact that the appellant/accused was confronted by these witnesses and she told that having killed Baroma for the reason that she has killed her husband thus stands sufficiently proved and this fact of the appellant/accused having made this extra-judicial confession before these witnesses is not demolished in their cross-examination nor anything is brought on record to show that these witnesses who are close relatives and neighbours falsely implicated her. On the other hand, cross-examination of Santosh Kotal (P.W. 6) it has been suggested that he wanted to grab the property of her husband or for that he is deposing falsely that the appellant/accused confessed of having murdered Baroma. This suggestion is falsified by the fact that appellant/accused has a son who would otherwise inherit the property of her mother if convicted. Nothing is brought on record to show that what property would come in the share of Santosh (P.W. 6) if he succeeds in falsely implicating the appellant/accused. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that the appellant/accused was falsely implicated by her own relatives and neighbours. On the other hand it was very natural to confess before Santosh Kotal (P.W. 6) and Jharna Rani (P.W. 3) who were near relatives and Santosh Kotal (P.W. 6) was summoned by the appellant/accused herself to disclose what happened being the oldest male member residing with them.

As regards the contention that the prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence just because P.W. 1, Adhip Krishna Banerjee describes the premises as 22B, Pashupati Bose Lane, it does not dislodge the place of occurrence and all other witnesses including the investigating officer and witnesses to the seizure has specifically stated that the incident took place in the room at 22A, Pashupati Bose Lane. The articles seized from the place of occurrence were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory the result of analysis (Ext. 8) and (Ext. 8/1) shows stains of human blood were detected on them. These are the articles which were collected from the place of occurrence and the fact of seizure has been sufficiently established by examining P.W. 4 Laltu De and P.W. 5 Srivas Sarkar.

In our view the plea of insanity raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused was rightly turned down by the trial Court as the material on which such plea was founded is that Smt. Jharna Rani Manna, P.W. 3 who deposed in her evidence that on reaching, they found the accused almost insane condition and that of P.W. 6 who has deposed to the effect that the appellant/accused was in a violent mood. The learned trial Court has considered this and found that the appellant/accused was in violent mood immediately after committing that murder and P.W. 3 told that they found her in almost insane condition is most natural after commission of a murder by a person who is not a professional murderer. When she found that she murdered a hapless lady of 70 years old she could understand the enormity of the consequences of her act and for that reason she might have become violent to each one who approached her.

Further we find that the prosecution has also brought on record that the motive for which the appellant/accused had killed the victim i.e., according to her the victim was responsible for the death of her husband therefore, she killed her. In the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused of this Court in Dinaprosad Burman alias Sallan Burman (supra) do not apply and stands distinguished on fact as in that case there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the accused used to suffer from temporary insanity and the Court found that the convict appellant at the time of commission of offence was by way of unsoundness of mind prevented from understanding the act committed by him and he has sufficiently discharged the onus case upon him u/s 105 of the Evidence Act in view of the evidence adduced and he is squarely covered by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the appeal of the convict was allowed.

In the absence of any evidence on record that the mental condition of the appellant/accused was at the crucial point of time was such that she was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what she was doing either wrong or contrary to law i.e. lack of requisite mens rea, it cannot be held that the appellant/accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind. On the other hand, the appellant/accused was having ill will towards the deceased as she was of a firm belief that the deceased was responsible for the death of her husband and on getting an opportunity and taking advantage of the fact that the victim was 70 years old lady brutally assaulted her causing her injuries sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant/accused confessed the fact of having done away with the deceased and justified her act which speaks of her state of mind and the fact that she appeared insane or was in a violent mood by itself is not indicative of a unsoundness state of her mind, at the most such emotion may be expression of a disturb state of mind as observed by the trial Court.

Therefore, we do not find any merits in the appeal and same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the trial Court is confirmed. We are informed that the appellant/accused is presently in judicial custody, the appellant/accused shall undergo the remaining part of her sentence of imprisonment for life. In case the prisoner is found to suffer from any illness mental or otherwise it is obligatory on part of Superintendent of Correctional Home where she is lodged to get her examined by psychiatrist/medical officer and treated.

J.N. Patel, C.J. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.

I agree.