DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.07.2004 and 17.07.2004 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2002 thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused appellant was also convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case, in short, was that on 2.7.1998 the accused appellant went out of his village with his wife Lakshmi and daughter Mamata saying that they would go to their aunts house at Polba. On 3.7.1998 in the morning the accused appellant was found in the village at his residence and on being asked he told that he left his wife Lakshmi and daughter Mamata in his aunts house at Polba. On 3.7.1998 at about 11.00 A.M. one beheaded deadbody of a lady and one deadbody of female child were found lying in the vacant field in Ichhapur Mouza within the jurisdiction of Haripal Police Station. Having received such information police arrived at the place of occurrence and started investigation. During investigation a severed head was also recovered from the side of the railway track bush. Subsequently the deadbodies were identified as deadbodies of Lakshmi Mondal and Mamata Mondal. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police.
(3.) To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses including the Autopsy Surgeon and the Investigating Officer of the case and none was examined on behalf of the defence. The defence was a plea of innocence and of false implication. P.W. 1, Nilmony Chatterjee was the informant in the present case. He found a deadbody of a lady without head lying in the field and at a distance from the said deadbody the deadbody of a minor girl was also found lying. He gave a written complaint to the police, which was scribed by his nephew as per his dictation. He further deposed that three days after the recovery of the said beheaded deadbody a severed head was recovered from the side of the railway track bush. From the said place a jute bag containing some wearing apparels were also recovered. Inquest was held over the deadbody without any head and he signed the inquest report. P.W. 2, Prolay Chatterjee was nephew of P.W. 1 and he was the scribe of the FIR. He was also a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deadbody. P.W. 3 was also a witness to the inquest of the deadbodies. P.W. 4 was a witness to the inquest of the severed head, which was found by the side of the railway track. P.W. 5, Subir Santra was a witness to the inquest of the headless deadbody and the deadbody of the minor girl. P.W. 7 was one Alok Kumar Malik. He stated in his evidence that the accused appellant Gopal after the death of his first wife married Lakshmi @ Kinu (the victim). He also stated that the first wife of the accused appellant was murdered. It was his further deposition that the accused had an illicit relation with the wife of one Haru belonging to his village and because of such extramarital affair there was a dispute between the accused appellant and his wife Lakshmi. He stated that six years back in the month of Ashar Lakshmi went to his house and took one jute bag and one sari from his wife. The accused appellant and the minor daughter Mamata was also found with Lakshmi at that time and the accused stated that they were going to Polba to their aunts house. He further stated that on the following day he found the accused appellant Gopal in his village and on being asked he stated that his wife and daughter would return after 4/5 days. It is in his evidence that three days after that the aunt of Polba came to his village and told that the accused and the victim Lakshmi never visited her place at Polba. Thereafter they started searching for Lakshmi and her daughter. Subsequently after receiving an information that Lakshmi and her daughter were murdered he had been to Haripal Police Station and could identify the sari of his wife and the jute bag as also the shirt of Gopal. Having seen the photographs he could identify the same as the deadbodies of his niece Lakshmi and her daughter. P.W. 8, Mongala Malik was the wife of P.W. 7 and she corroborated the evidence of P.W. 7 in all vital aspects. She also stated about the illicit relation of the accused appellant Gopal with the wife of Haru and further stated that over this extramarital affair of the appellant there was a dispute between the appellant and his wife. P.W. 9, Aditya Malik was the father of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that six years back in the month of Ashar at about 10.30 / 11.00 A.M. he found the appellant, Gopal, his daughter and his granddaughter to proceed through the playground and on being asked the appellant replied that they were going to their aunts house at Polba. The appellant further told this witness that they would stay their for 2/3 days and would return after the Rath Mela was over. This witness further stated in his evidence that on the next morning he found Gopal in the village when he was brushing his teeth and on being asked by this witness the appellant Gopal told that they would return to the village after 2/3 days. Four days thereafter Bhabi (aunt of Polba) came to the village and told that neither Gopal nor his wife or daughter went to her place. P.W. 10, Pairag Patra also stated in his evidence that he saw Gopal, his wife and daughter going to Polba to see Rath Yatra there. This witness also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 9 on all vital aspects and further stated that on the next morning Gopal was seen in the village and on being asked he again stated that his wife and daughter would return to the village after few days. P.W. 11 was a witness to the seizure of jute bag and wearing apparels of the deceased. P. W. 12 was declared hostile by the prosecution. P. W. 13 was Haru Santra and he stated in his evidence that the appellant Gopal had some illicit relation with his wife and one day he saw Gopal and his wife Padma in the same bed. P. W. 14 was Nikhil Chandra Malik and he was a panchayet member. He also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 9 and 10 and stated that on 2.7.1998 in the forenoon Gopal took his wife and daughter to Polba for witnessing Rath Yatra. On the next morning Gopal was found in the village and on being asked Gopal told that his wife and daughter would return after 2/3 days. Two weeks thereafter they got an information that wife and daughter of Gopal were murdered. He also stated about the illicit relation of Gopal with the wife of Haru (P.W. 13). This witness further stated that the appellant Gopal never made any attempt to search for his wife and daughter in any place. P. W. 15 was the Autopsy Surgeon, who held post mortem over the deadbodies and on examination he found that the body was fully decomposed. After dissection haemorrhage was found under neck. Larynx and trachea were found congested. Hyoid bone was intact. All the viscera were found decomposed. This witness further opined that the cause of death was due to shock from asphyxia. P.W. 16 was the Investigating Officer of the case, who visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the deadbodies, recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the accused person. P. W. 17 was Dr. Provash Chandra Sarkar, who held post mortem examination on the severed head of unknown female in the present case. This witness found the following injuries as quoted below : 2. One sliced sharp cut injury was found just below the left ear-2 x 1 skin deep at occipital region almost round in shape. 3.One sharp cut injury along the occipital bone (sliced injury) extending from occipital region to foramen magnum 4 x 4 (Max) with convexity upwards. 4.A sharp cut injury on posterior aspect of head extending from left side crossing the foramen magnum of which lower border is curved with convexity downwards 4 x (Max). 5. One sharp cut injury on right side of lower portion of head 3 x 2 extending above downwards. 6. Margin of skin was everted. 7. Head de-touched from rest of the body at the base of head with sharp cut injury except some portion of tissue (muscle etc.) surrounding the base of the skull. 8.On occipital region a small portion of skin was present. 9.I found fracture skull and contained sliced injury at superficial region in connection with above noted injury, otherwise scalp was congested and was containing the evidence of viral reaction. Membrance were injured. Brain materials were redish colour. In my opinion the head is separated from the body by a sharp curved cutting weapon and de-touched from the rest of the body which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. P.W. 18 was the first Investigating Officer, who on transfer handed over the Case Diary to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. P.W. 19 was the Sub Inspector of Police, who on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet.;