Case: Madhumoy Madhusudam Boul Vs. State of West Bengal

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 (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
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.