Case: Madhumoy Madhusudam Boul Vs. State of West Bengal

1. The sole appellant is convicted under S.302 IPC and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura. The High Court on reference confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. The charge against the appellant was that on February 17,1988 at about 1 a.m. he took his wife in a truck and drove the truck to a jungle. There he throttled her to death and ran the truck on her and thereafter dragged the body from the jungle to the left of the road and disappeared. The case mainly rested on the sole testimony of PW 18, the cleaner of the truck. The Trial Court examined 22 witnesses. The other witnesses only spoke about certain circumstances. The learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly relying on the evidence of PW 18 convicted the appellant. The same was affirmed by the High Court. It is submitted in this appeal that PW 18 was examined at a belated stage and therefore his evidence does not inspire confidence and also is not trustworthy. Further submission is that the evidence of the other witnesses even, if accepted, did not connect the accused. To appreciate these contentions it becomes necessary to state the facts and also refer to the evidence of the material witnesses. The deceased was the wife of the accused. They were married some years ago and they had a child. The appellant was a driver of a truck owned by PW 8. It is alleged that the accused was ill treating the deceased. There were strained feelings between them. On February 18,1988 at about 3 p.m. the Officer incharge of the Police Station received an information from PW 1, a villager that the dead body of an unknown female was found lying in Paharpur jungle. The officer made an entry and endorsed the case to PW 2 for preliminary inquiry. Upon being informed that some unknown person had killed the deceased, the inquest was held, the photographs of the dead body were taken and the body was sent for post mortem. On February 29, 1988 the father of the deceased with two others PWs 14 and 20 came to the police station and gave a report that the wife of the accused was taken by the accused in a truck on the night of February 17, 1988 and February 18, 1988 at about 1-1.30 a.m. and they have not returned. The same information was entered in the General Diary. The dead body was identified by PWs 14 and 20. The Investigating Officer got an information that the truck which was driven by the accused met with an accident and he contacted the owner PW 8 and verified from him that the accused was the driver of the truck till February 17, 1988 and PW 18 was its cleaner. The Investigating Officer searched the house of the accused and found him to be absconding. They proceeded with the investigation and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and also got the statements recorded under S.161 CrPC. The truck was seized. While so, on April 27, 1988 that is two months after the occurrence PW 18 alleged to be cleaner of the truck came to the police station. PW 22 the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of PW 18 who is put forward as an eyewitness to the occurrence. He stated that on the fateful night he was travelling in the truck along with the accused. The accused entered in his house and came back with his wife namely, the deceased from the house and both of them boarded the truck into drivers cabin and PW 18 was sent on the roof of the cabin. He drove the truck to a jungle. Then there he brought down the deceased and throttled her to death. Then he ran the truck over her body. Thereafter he dragged the body to the jungle on the left of the road to a short distance from the road. Then he drove the truck to Bagatabore and collected labourers and went to work on his duty. PW 18 also stated that on the way the truck turned upside down on the road and one labourer also died. In respect of this incident a crime was registered. 2. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was lodged. The plea of the accused is one of denial and that he has been falsely implicated. 3. The circumstances relied upon by the courts below are firstly that the accused was ill treating the deceased and secondly that on the fateful night the accused came in the truck and took the deceased and thereafter only the dead body was found in the jungle. The medical evidence is relied upon to show that it was an unnatural death and was due to violence. As far as the complicity of the accused is concerned, the courts below relied on the evidence of PW 18. If the evidence of PW 18, the sole eyewitness is found to be unreliable, as contended by the learned counsel, then we are left only with one incriminating circumstance namely that the deceased and the accused went together in the truck that is to say she was last seen in the company of the accused. This circumstance by itself cannot bring home the guilt to the accused. 4. The doctor, PW 17, who conducted the post mortem found five injuries and on internal examination he found comminuted fracture of all the bones. He opined that injuries were homicidal in nature and death was due to those injuries. He further submitted that some of the injuries were incidental on being run over by a heavy vehicle. 5. With this background let us examine the evidence of PW 18, the sole eyewitness. On that day he was aged about 20 years. He deposed that he has been working as a cleaner for about one and half years in the truck of which the accused was a driver. Coming to the date of occurrence he deposed that two years ago on the night of Shivaratri the accused drove the truck to his house and came back with his wife from the house. Then he drove the truck to a jungle where he brought down his wife and throttled her to death and then he ran the truck over her body. Thereafter he dragged the body to the jungle on the left of the road. In the cross examination he deposed that while going on duty after causing the death of the deceased the truck which was driven by the accused turned upside down and met with an accident killing one labourer and in this accident this witness was also an accused. He further stated that he was in the truck when it met with an accident. He admitted that he went back to his house and remained there for a period of more than one month and he did not meet anybody nor he told anybody. He further submitted that he met the police officer after two months from the date of accident and gave a statement. Thus it is seen that PW 18 is highly belated witness. Further his version is in conflict with the medical evidence. In the chief examination he stated that the accused in the first instance throttled his wife to death. He stated that the accused after throttling the deceased to death ran the truck over her body. This version appears to be highly artificial. That apart his conduct is highly unnatural. If he had really seen the incident in the manner stated by him, he kept silent for two months, did not inform anybody and what more he states is that he went on his own to the police station and gave a statement. It was simply mentioned that some unknown person has caused the death. PW 18s evidence no doubt has been relied upon by both the courts below. But there are infirmities in his evidence. First of all it is highly doubtful whether he was in the truck on that night. If he was in the truck he must have also received some injuries when it met with an accident and what is more a labourer was also killed. The other infirmity is that he did not inform anybody and he said for two months he never bothered about this thing and he was simply remaining in his house. This is highly unnatural and suspicious. He must have been put up as a witness at a belated stage. Further his version that the accused first throttled her to death is proved to be false as per the medical evidence. Having regard to the fact that he is the sole eyewitness we find his evidence wholly unreliable. If his evidence is eschewed, then we are left only with the evidence of PWs 7, 9, 14 and 20. PWs 7 and 14 are examined to speak about the ill treatment meted out by the accused to his wife. Therefore their evidence does not lead us any further. PW 7 also deposed that he was informed by one Anil Baran Roy, known to him earlier, that on February 17, 1988 the accused came to his house and asked his wife to give water and thereafter she was not seen. His evidence is to the effect that the accused must have taken the deceased along with him. But this is only a conjecture. There remains the evidence of the two witnesses PWs 9 and 20. PW 9 is a resident of Mauza and uncle of the accused. He spoke about the marriage that took place between the accused and the deceased. He further deposed that the deceased was missing for the last two days and he along with Sandhya, sister of the accused went to the police station and gave a report. But this is wholly hearsay evidence as he has not actually seen the accused taking the deceased in the truck. He admitted in the cross examination that it was the first time he is giving a statement in the court. It may not be necessary for us to refer to other witnesses. From the above discussion it can be seen that the evidence of the remaining witnesses is wholly insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.6. After giving our careful consideration, we are unable to place any reliance on the evidence of PW 18.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]That apart his conduct is highly unnatural. If he had really seen the incident in the manner stated by him, he kept silent for two months, did not inform anybody and what more he states is that he went on his own to the police station and gave a statement. It was simply mentioned that some unknown person has caused the death. PW 18s evidence no doubt has been relied upon by both the courts below. But there are infirmities in his evidence. First of all it is highly doubtful whether he was in the truck on that night. If he was in the truck he must have also received some injuries when it met with an accident and what is more a labourer was also killed. The other infirmity is that he did not inform anybody and he said for two months he never bothered about this thing and he was simply remaining in his house. This is highly unnatural and suspicious. He must have been put up as a witness at a belated stage. Further his version that the accused first throttled her to death is proved to be false as per the medical evidence. Having regard to the fact that he is the sole eyewitness we find his evidence wholly unreliable. If his evidence is eschewed, then we are left only with the evidence of PWs 7, 9, 14 and 20. PWs 7 and 14 are examined to speak about the ill treatment meted out by the accused to his wife. Therefore their evidence does not lead us any further. PW 7 also deposed that he was informed by one Anil Baran Roy, known to him earlier, that on February 17, 1988 the accused came to his house and asked his wife to give water and thereafter she was not seen. His evidence is to the effect that the accused must have taken the deceased along with him. But this is only a conjecture. There remains the evidence of the two witnesses PWs 9 and 20. PW 9 is a resident of Mauza and uncle of the accused. He spoke about the marriage that took place between the accused and the deceased. He further deposed that the deceased was missing for the last two days and he along with Sandhya, sister of the accused went to the police station and gave a report. But this is wholly hearsay evidence as he has not actually seen the accused taking the deceased in the truck. He admitted in the cross examination that it was the first time he is giving a statement in the court. It may not be necessary for us to refer to other witnesses. From the above discussion it can be seen that the evidence of the remaining witnesses is wholly insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.6. After giving our careful consideration, we are unable to place any reliance on the evidence of PW 18.