Swatanter Kumar, J. - (1.) This case is a typical example, where conviction is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that doctrine of circumstantial evidence is brought into aid where there are no witnesses to give eye version of the occurrence and it is for the prosecution to establish complete chain of circumstances and events leading to a definite conclusion that will point towards the involvement and guilt of the accused. The challenge in the present appeal is to the concurrent judgments of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court, primarily, on the ground that the prosecution has been able to establish by leading cogent and reliable evidence and the chain of circumstances leading to the commission of the offence by the accused persons. The challenge, primarily, is that findings of the Court are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. According to the accused-appellants, the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is submitted that the confessions, alleged to have been recorded by the police officer on the basis of which recoveries were effected, are contrary to law and, therefore, could not be the basis of the conviction of the appellants. For these reasons the appellants claim acquittal from charge.
(2.) To examine the merits of these contentions reference to the case of the prosecution and the facts, as they emerged from the record, would be necessary.
(3.) On 28th April, 1999 at Police Station Jadavpur, a case was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') against unknown miscreants for causing death of one Smt. Phool Guha, wife of Dr. Ashim Guha, resident of 11/1 East Road within Jadavpur Police Station. This case was registered on the basis of the complaint made by Dr. Ashim Guha (Ext. P.1) which reads as under: To The Officer-in-Charge Jadavpur, P.S. Dist.-south 24-Parganas Sir, This is to inform you, that on 28.4.99 at around 20.15 hrs. myself along with my son Debmalya and daughter-in-law Indira left for Gariahat for some personal work. My wife Smt. Phul Guha was in the house alone at 21.35 hrs. we all returned home and noticed a large gathering in front of our house. I found my wife lying dead inside the room of my daughter-in-law having her tongue prosuded and some marks of bruises could to detected on her body and blood was seen trickled out of the right angle of her mouth. It was also noticed that the assailants after (illegible) the murder of my wife, ransacked both the rooms and the household articles were scattered. It appeared that the assailants entered through the main door after obtaining the keys and the lock along with the key was found in the stair case. I, therefore, request you to kindly take necessary action and do the needful to (illegible) the miscreants. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Asim Kumar Guha As is evident from the above complaint that Dr. Ashim Guha, husband of the deceased, his son Debmalya and daughter-in-law Indira had left for Garihat on 28th April, 1999 at about 8.15 P.M. The deceased was all alone at home. When they returned home at about 9.30 P.M. they found a large gathering in front of the house. Upon entering the house, they found that Phool Guha was lying dead inside the room of her daughter-in-law with tongue protruded and with some marks of bruises on her body and blood trickling out of her mouth. It transpired that the assailants committed the murder of his wife and had ransacked both the rooms as the household articles were lying scattered. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the Investigating Officer, who was later examined as PW 13, commenced his investigation. He called for experts including dog squad. The photographs were taken. The dog squad was brought to the place of occurrence. After sniffing the place of occurrence, taking the round of the house and also sniffing the handkerchief lying on the face of the deceased, the dogs could not identify anyone present there. Thereafter inquest of the deceased was taken with the help of the relatives. The body was taken to Mominpur Police Morgue by the constable where the post mortem of the deceased was conducted and the report is Ext. 8. From the place of occurrence certain articles were recovered and seizure memos were prepared whereafter both the rooms at the upper floor of the house were locked. The saliva and blood staines, where the body was found, were also seized by scraping floor and separate seizure memo was prepared and marked as Ext. 3. After some enquiry and investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested Sanatan Naskar, Appellant No. 1 on 8th July, 1999 from village Khasiara. He admitted his guilt in commission of the crime as well as identified the handkerchief recovered as his own. During investigation this appellant made a statement, which led to the recovery of wrist watches, which were allegedly looted from the house of the deceased. He also informed about the involvement of accused Mir Ismile, Appellant No. 2, who was arrested on 11th July, 1999 from Jugi Battala and he also, during investigation, made a statement leading to the recovery of two wrist watches as well as camera. The watches were recovered vide recovery memo Ext.6. The camera was recovered on the statement of the said accused from village Jhijrait for which the seizure memo Ext. 5 was also prepared. An attempt was made to recover jewellery from the shop, which was raided, but nothing could be recovered. The Investigating Officer then recorded the statements of number of witnesses, but in particular Jahar Chatterjee @ Kakuji (PW5), Indira Guha (PW6), Ali Anam (PW8) and Biplab Talukdar (PW9) respectively and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 302/411/34 IPC was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 28th November, 1999. After trial and recording of the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the learned Sessions Judge, by a detailed judgment, convicted both the accused and punished them as under: Both the convicts are produced from J.C. They are given hearing with regard to question of sentence Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The convicts are informed that the sentence Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. which has been established yesterday is life imprisonment or death penalty and the sentence for committing robbery Under Section 392 I.P.C. is imprisonment for 10 years and the sentence for having possession of the looted property Under Section 411 I.P.C. is 3 years. The convicts plead mercy. Heard Ld. PP and Ld. defence counsels in this regard. As the convicts are found guilty Under Section 302/34 IPC the minimum punishment is imprisonment for life and this is not a case of rarest of the rare cases and as such the death penalty is not called for. Accordingly, both the convicts are sentenced to R.I. for Life. With regard to offence of robbery Under Section 392 IPC the convicts are sentenced to R. Imprisonment for five years. With regard to offence Under Section 411 IPC for possessing the looted properties the convicts are sentenced to R. Imprisonment for one year. All the sentences shall run concurrently. ;