Paritosh Nath @ Bapan vs State Of Tripura

S. Talapatra, J

Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

This is an appeal by the convict from the judgment dated 21.03.2017 delivered in Case No.ST/T-1/0000001/2015 by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of one Bimala Nath and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. The said judgment and order dated 21.03.2017 are challenged in this appeal.

The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the complaint [Exbt.1] filed by one Barindra Nath on 22.10.2014 to the Officer in Charge, Kanchanpur Police Station. It had been revealed in the said complaint that on 20.10.2014 at about 9 o' clock at night when the informant was in a kirtan in the house of one Swapan Nath adjacent to his house, one of his neighbours namely Jyotika Ranjan Nath had informed that their neighbour Sri Paritosh Nath @ Bapan Nath was assaulting his mother Bimala Nath severely. He had pushed her mother on veranda and throttled her throat and kicked her in the belly. The informant rushed to his house and found Paritosh there assaulting her mother. He had left that place in the immediate aftermath. On hearing his out-cry, people from the neighbourhood gathered in his house and the informant's mother was sent to Dasda Hospital, wherefrom she was brought to Dharmanagar Hospital. From Dharmanagar Hospital Bimala Nath was referred to Kailashahar Hospital and she was transported to the said hospital for better treatment. On 22.10.2004 at about 5 o' clock in the morning, Bimala Nat expired in the R.G.M. Hospital, Kailashahar. Without postmortem examination, the dead body of Bimala Nath was brought to her house and the police came to take notice of the dead body.

In the complaint itself, it has been stated that Paritosh Nath @ Bapan was suffering from mental imbalances. He had hurt his mother due to mental imbalances. On the basis of the said complaint, Kanchanpur P.S. Case No.2014 KCP 092 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered and the investigation was taken up. On completion of the investigation the final report was submitted by the investigating officer sending up the appellant to face the trial as the materials to establish a prima facie case against him had been collected in the course of investigation. When the charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.

The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge adduced as many as eight witnesses. That apart, six documentary evidence had been introduced including the postmortem examination report [Exbt.2] and the Surathal report [Exbt.6]. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. to have the response of the accused in respect of the incriminating materials those surfaced in the trial. During the said examination, the appellant reiterated his plea of innocence by stating that the evidence are concocted and malafide.

Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that the Sessions Court has recorded the finding of conviction without fairly appreciating the evidence. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has strenuously submitted that in the postmortem examination report [Exbt.2] it has been recorded that on the person of the victim there were multiple bruises almost all over her body. In the opinion of the doctor as recorded in the report [Exbt.2] the cause of death is :

"Shock due to intra abdominal injury which is caused by impact of hard and blunt forces."

The injuries were ante-mortem in nature.

Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has thus submitted that the evidence as pleaded by the prosecution leads to assumption, but not to the concrete evidence. The judgment of conviction is on surmise and hence the impugned judgment requires to be interfered with.

From the other side, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the state, in order to repel the submission of Mr. Majumder, learned counsel, has submitted that the conviction as returned has been so returned on meticulous survey of evidence. The Sessions Judge has accepted the presence of injuries over the dead body in terms of the testimony of the postmortem doctor namely Dr. Shirsendu Dhar [PW-5]. He had surveyed the injuries on the person of the deceased. The postmortem Doctor [PW-5] has categorically stated that from the condition of stomach, it appeared that severe force was applied from outside. As a result, the stomach was perforated and peritonal cavity was found full of blood.

The doctor namely Joydeep Chowdhury [PW-6] who attended the patient at Kanchanpur Sub Divisional Hospital has stated about the injuries on the person of the victim. There were multiple injuries over the person of the deceased. PW-6 had also participated in the postmortem examination and found that the small intestine was having traumatic perforation. No cross examination was carried out in respect of opinions of PWs-5 and 6 as discussed above. Thus, cause of death has not been challenged by the defence.

PW-7 namely Sri Bhabatosh Talukdar as it evinces from the record, had recorded the oral ejahar lodged by the informant. He identified the ejahar [Exbt.1].

PW-8, Roliana was given the responsibility of investigating the offence. PW-8 had also prepared the Surathal report [Exbt.5] in presence of witnesses. He has categorically stated that a team of medical officers namely Dr. Shirshendu Dhar [PW-5], Dr. Joydeep Chowdhury [PW-6] and Dr. Sandip Nat [not examined in the trial] had carried out the postmortem examination. He had filed the final report. It has surfaced that entire prosecution case has been structured on PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4.

For purpose of appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties it would be appropriate to briefly record their statements made in the trial.

PW-1, Jyotika Nat, a neighbour of the victim, while returning from his shop with Amar Nath [PW-2] to attend the kirtan in the house of Nirmala Nath, they noticed the appellant, Paritosh Nath @ Bapan causing hurt to his mother namely Bimala Nath. He had been giving kicks targeting his mother indiscriminately. PWs-1 and 2 tried to resist the appellant but he had managed to escape. PW-1 informed Barindra Nath, the informant [PW-3] about the incident. They all came back to the house of the victim and found Bimala Nath lying in a senseless condition. They took Bimala Nath to Dasda Hospital. From Dasda Hospital she had been referred to Dharmanagar District Hospital and RGM Hospital at Kailashahar on 22.10.2014. Bimala Nath expired succumbing to her injuries. PW-1 identified the appellant in the dock and denied that he had any knowledge about mental disorder of the appellant. On the contrary, he has stated that whenever he did not find food at his house, the appellant used to become arrogant and start torturing his mother. He has categorically stated in the trial he did never consider the appellant as a man suffering from mental disorder. In the cross examination, he has stated that Bimala Nath was crying out for help. A specific suggestion was made that the appellant was a patient of Schizophrenia but that was denied by PW-1.

PW-2, Amar Nath has corroborated every statement made by PW-1. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of his testimony is reproduced hereunder :

"On 20.10.2014 at about 09:00 p.m. I and Jyotika Nath was proceeding towards the house of Nirmala Nath to attend Kirton. On way near the house of one Barindra we heard crying of a female raising help (bachao bachao). Then we rushed to that house and we saw that Bimala Nath was being assaulted by her son Paritosh Nath @ Bapan by giving kicks and blows and then Jyotika Nath stopped him and managed to detain him but giving pressure to Jyotika Nath accused Paritosh Nath @ Bapan somehow managed to escape from that place. In that house I also saw that lady who raised alarm. Thereafter, we went to the house of Swapan Nath S/O-Ramesh Nath and informed everybody. Then persons present in that house also rushed to that house. Thereafter, on our returned to the house of Barindra Nath we found Bimala Nath in senseless condition receiving injuries caused by Paritosh Nath @ Bapan. Incident took place in the Baranda of the hut of Barindra Nath. Thereafter, injured was taken to hospital. Subsequently, on the following dates I heard that Bimala Nath expired at RGM Hospital, Kailashahar due to her injuries caused by Paritosh Nath @ Bapan. I can identify the accused and today he is present in the Court. Bapan Nath is known in the locality as a bad boy. He had a bad incident. He used to sell meat at Suknacharra Market. I did not know anything of his mental order."

In the cross examination also PW-2 stood by what he had stated in the examination in chief denying the suggestion that the appellant was a patient of Schizophrenia.

PW-3, Barindra Nath [the informant] has corroborated both PWs-1 and 2 and stated that being accompanied by PWs-1 and 2 he came to his house, adjacent to the house of Bimala Nath where she was being beaten up by the appellant. He has admitted the complaint in the evidence but denied that the appellant lost his mental balance six to seven years ago.

PW-4, Ranu Nat, wife of PW-3 has stated that on 20.10.2014 at about 9 p.m. when she was sleeping inside her room, she woke up hearing alarm of Bimala Nath. Her son and daughter were also inside the hut. From the light of the electric bulb, she saw the appellant giving kicks on the chest of Bimala Nath indiscriminately, when she came out of her hut. According to her, such torture was not new. When she came outside she saw Bimala Nath was lying senseless. At that time lot of neighbouring people including her husband [PW-3], Jyotika Nath [PW-1] and Amar Nath [PW-3] appeared in that place. She denied the suggestion that the appellant was a freak or insane.

Having appreciated the evidence including the evidence relating to death of Bimala Nath, this court does not have any confusion that the finding of conviction was irresistible. Moreover, the appellant did not adduce any evidence regarding the solitary plea of unsoundness of mind as raised by him in his defence. Thus, this court is unable to accept the submission that the trial court did not properly appreciate the evidence.

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.

The appellant shall serve out the remaining period of sentence in accordance with the order dated 21.03.2017.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.