INDIRA BANERJEE - (1.) The present matter is placed before us by virtue of referral order dated 22.05.2014 wherein the following question was placed for reference before us that, "whether the 2nd FIR and the investigation in pursuance of further information thereof should be straightway quashed or should it require a scrutiny during trial of the permissible matter of prejudice, and truthfulness of the evidence collected on the basis of second FIR."
(2.) But it is to be noted that, during the course of arguments counsels from both the sides admitted that, no second FIR was registered in the present case. Although the reference was made to us, to adjudicate the above question of law, basing on the submissions we can conclude that the issue of second FIR does not arise in the present matter. Therefore, we are proceeding to adjudicate the matter on merits.
(3.) The brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication are as follows: the accused­appellant used to stay in the same block under the complainant (PW­1) and he used to frequently visit the house of complainant (PW­1). Further he also owned a betel shop in the vicinity. On the day of incident, i.e. 24.08.1993, both the complainant and his wife left for their duties, and their daughter (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') aged around 17 years, was alone at the house. Thereafter, on finding an opportunity at around 10.45 A.M., the accused­appellant entered the house and tried to establish forceful physical relations with the deceased and the same was strongly resisted by her. Thus, a physical altercation broke out between the two, wherein the accused­appellant strangulated the deceased by putting the weight of his right hand on the throat of the deceased. The accused­appellant thereafter orchestrated the entire incident into a suicide, by hanging the deceased from the roof with the help of a white bedsheet. However, during this incident, two key witnesses namely Kushalpal and Vinod Kumar (PW­2), visited the house of the complainant (PW­1) for some personal work. On their call at the main­door, they were addressed by the accused­appellant who informed them that nobody was present at home and therefore, considering the accused­petitioner to be a neighbour, both the persons left the house without doubting the accused­petitioner or suspecting that anything was wrong.;