Kashinath Mondal vs State Of West Bengal

2. According to the prosecution, on the night of 30/10/1997, complainant

3. At about 2.45 a.m., Sampa returned from the video show. On hearing the call of Sampa, complainant’s mother opened the gate. Sampa then straight away went to her room on the first floor. She saw her elder sister Pampa lying dead in a naked condition on the floor. She started shouting. On hearing her cries, the complainant and members of his family rushed to the upper floor. On seeing the dead body of Pampa, they also started shouting. At that time, the appellant came out from his room, which is situated adjacent to the room where the body of Pampa was lying. The neighbours of the complainant also came to the place of occurrence. Since at the relevant time, Pampa and the appellant were the only occupants of the first floor and since the exit doors of the house were locked from inside, the complainant firmly believed that the heinous crime of murder and rape had been committed only by the appellant. The complainant, then lodged a written complaint before O.C., Khanakul Police Station. In the complaint, the complainant disclosed that his relations with his brother Kashinath i.e. the appellant were strained on account of property dispute. He further stated that on a few occasions, quarrels had taken place between the appellant and his wife and daughters over domestic affairs and the appellant had threatened them of dire consequences.

4. On the basis of the said written complaint, police registered a case under sections 376 and 302 of the IPC against the appellant and, after completion of investigation, the appellant came to be charged as aforesaid. The appellant denied the prosecution case. He claimed to be tried. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly convicted the appellant as aforesaid. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

7. Evidence of PW-1 Tarak Chandra Mondal, the complainant, who is the father of the deceased is very relevant. According to him, on the ground floor of his house, there are two rooms. Similarly, on the first floor of his house, there are two rooms. He stated that on the night of the incident i.e. on 30/10/1997, he was sleeping in the room on southern side of the ground floor along with his wife PW-14 Kanan and youngest daughter Anita. The room on the northern side of the ground floor was occupied by his mother PW-18 Sagarika Mondal. He stated that the verandah on the eastern side of ground floor was enclosed by iron grill fencing. The said iron grill gate was locked on the night in question. According to him, verandah on the northern side of his house was enclosed by wall with an iron grill gate. There are two grill gates on the eastern verandah each fitted in front of the two rooms on the ground floor. These two gates were locked on the night in question. There is a similar verandah in front of the rooms on the first floor. Those rooms are also covered by grill fencing. The staircase on the northern side of the house leads to the first floor verandah. The northern room on the first floor was occupied by his two daughters viz. deceased Pampa and PW-17 Sampa. The southern room on the first floor was occupied by the appellant. The staircase landing on the first floor is situated near the northern room, which was occupied by his two daughters. The said staircase leads to the roof of the said house. At the landing of the staircase on the roof, there is one grill gate. The said grill gate was locked at the relevant time. The situation of the house and the description of the locking arrangement deposed to by PW-1 Tarak Chandra Mondal is important because it establishes that at the relevant time, when the offence is stated to have been committed, all the gates of the house were locked from inside. It must be stated here that this case of PW-1 Tarak Mondal is supported by his wife PW-14 Kanan Mondal, his second daughter PW-17 Sampa and his mother PW-18 Sagarika Mondal. They have stood the test of cross-examination very well.

14. The appeal is dismissed.