- (1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the High court of Calcutta upholding the conviction of the appellants by the Additional Sessions judge, Burdwan under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellants to imprisonment for life as also convicting the appellants under Section 201 of the indian Penal Code and imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000. 00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months; the sentences to run concurrently. The first appellant is the father-in-law of the deceased and the third appellant is the husband of the deceased. The special leave petition from which this appeal arises was filed by three petitioners; the first petitioner being the father- in-law of the deceased, the second petitioner being the son of the first petitioner and brother of the third petitioner; and the third petitioner being the husband of the deceased. The special leave petition in respect of the second petitioner has been dismissed since he failed to surrender.
(2.) The prosecution case commenced on account of a complaint lodge by Aarti Ghosh (Public Witness. 1) , the mother of the deceased, on 17/8/1983. The complainant alleged that she had given her 13 years' old daughter saraswati in marriage to appellant No. 3 in the month of February 1983. But for the last three or four months she could not find any trace of her daughter. On inquiring at saraswati's-in-laws' house she was told that her daughter had gone to witness a cinema and later, she was told that Saraswati had been sent to the appellants' native house at arrah for delivery of a child which she was carrying. When she was unable to trace her. daughter she finally complained to the police station, Durgarpur on 17/8/1983. In the meanwhile, the three appellants had disappeared and the house was under lock and key. Ultimately, on 30/8/1983, the first appellant was arrested. It was at his instance that the spot where the dead body of Saraswati had been buried was identified and her dead body was exhumed. Medical examination showed ante-mortem injury on the head which was homicidal in nature. Ultimately, a charge-sheet was filed which led to the conviction of the accused by the Sessions Court which is upheld by the high Court.
(3.) The evidence is circumstantial. Public Witness 8, sadhu Singh, who is a friend -and neighbour of appellant No. 3 had given evidence to the effect that 2-3 months prior to the discovery of the dead body, appellant No. 3 had come to his house and asked him to accompany appellant No. 3 to his own house. When he went to the house of appellant No. 3 he saw the dead body of the wife of appellant No. 3 lying on a cot in the room. At the request of appellant No. 3, he and the appellants as well as a maternal uncle of appellants 2 and 3 carried the dead body of Saraswati to a vacant field by the side of a drain towards the north-eastern side of the hut of the accused. He dug a ditch by the side of the drain. The dead body along with her wearing apparels was buried there. He has also said that two or three months thereafter the dead body was recovered in the presence of police officers and others on the spot pointed out by the first appellant. Public Witness 7 who is a resident of the same basti has also deposed that on being called by the police officer, he went to the side of a nallah near Tamala Bridge. The police officer asked the first appellant where the dead body was. The first appellant pointed out the place where public Witness 7 dug. A skeleton was recovered from that place in a decomposed state wearing a saree and bangles. The mother of the deceased came to the spot and identified the skeleton as the skeleton of her daughter. The mother of the deceased has also given evidence. She has stated that she identified the dead body of her daughter.;