Promode Dey vs State Of West Bengal

2. The facts very briefly are that one Puspa Nandi lodged a complaint before the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali P.S., that on 23.02.2002 at about 10.00 a.m. she went to Nayarhat to purchase some ration and there she heard that her daughter-in-law Pratima Nandi had been murdered. She rushed to her house and saw that Pratima was lying dead at the southern side of her house and when she enquired, her grand daughter, Manika, told her that the appellant entered into their house with a big daa and killed her mother Pratima. The complaint was registered as an FIR and the appellant was arrested on 23.02.2002 and the daa alleged to have been used in killing the deceased was recovered from a jungle at the side of the house of the appellant. On 25.02.2002, the statement of Manika was recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’). The post-mortem was carried out by Dr. V. Kumar and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and trial was conducted.

3. Manika, who was aged only eight years at the time of trial, was examined as PW-2 and she gave a vivid account of how her mother Pratima was killed by the appellant with a daa. PW-1 (the complainant and the mother-in-law of the deceased), PW-8 (a resident of village Sajerpar in which the house of the deceased is located) and PW-11 (the husband of the deceased) who had heard soon after the incident from PW-2 that the appellant had killed the deceased with a daa, also supported the prosecution case. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, who were residents of village Sajerpar, however, turned hostile and said that they have not given any statement to the Police on how the deceased was murdered. PW-6, who was alleged to have scribed the FIR, also turned hostile saying that he had written the FIR on instructions from the Police, but he did not know the complainant PW-1. PW-7, who was a resident of village Sajerpar, said that he knew neither the appellant nor the deceased. PW-9, who was also a resident of the village Sajerpar, deposed that she did not know how the deceased was murdered. Dr. V. Kumar, who carried out the post-mortem, was examined as PW-10 and he described the injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the injuries could be caused by a sharp-cutting weapon and the injuries are 100% sufficient for causing death of the victim. PW- 12 is the Officer-in-charge of Kotwali P.S. and he received the complaint of PW-1 and entrusted the investigation to S.I. D. Jha. PW-13 is the constable of Kotwali P.S. who took the dead body of the deceased to Sadar Hospital for post-mortem. PW-14 is S.I. D. Jha, the Investigating Officer, and he has said that the appellant took him to the jungle by the side of his house and he brought out one daa from the jungle which was blood-stained at that time and he seized a daa from him and prepared a seizure list (Ext.6) in the presence of the witnesses. PW-15 is S.I. D. Bhowmick to whom further investigation was entrusted and who after further investigation submitted the charge- sheet. On the basis of the evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302, IPC. Thereafter, the trial court heard the appellant on the question of sentence and considering his age and other related factors, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.

11. In our considered opinion, the High Court is right in sustaining the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the eyewitness account of PW-2 and the evidence of PW-1, PW-8 and PW-11 as well as the recovery of the daa under Ext.6 at the instance of the appellant. The impugned judgment of the High Court is, therefore, sustained and the appeal is dismissed.