- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 14.2.2003 passed by Shri K.K. Bakshi, Additional Sessions Judge, Kalna in Sessions Trial No. 20/2001 arising out of Sessions Case No. 8/2001 whereby and whereunder the appellant, Shyamal Pramanik, was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default he was directed to suffer imprisonment for 1 year more with an observation that the period of detention shall be set off.
(2.) On 24.2.1998 at about 8:25 A.M the Purbasthali Police Station, in the Sub-Division of Kalna, District of Burdwan, recorded an F.I.R of one Madhav Rajbanshi which was registered as F.I.R of 18/1998. The F.I.R was lodged against the appellant, Shyamal Pramanik alleging inter-alia therein that at about 1 A.M of the night of 24.2.1998, he and other people of the locality had heard a commotion in the house of one Bhabataran Pramanik, his neighbour. On hearing such a commotion, he went there and found Pushpa Pramanik, wife of Shyamal Pramanik (Appellant), lying dead on the bed inside the room.
(3.) Upon enquiry, the people in that house informed him that Shyamal had beaten up his wife and had throttled her to death. They also told him that there had been a discord between the couple for a longtime. Shyamal had tried to run away after killing his wife but he could not do so since many people had reached there and as such, he was detained. According to the informant, Shyamal had confessed before him that there had been a discord between him and his wife for a longtime and that he could not tolerate Pushpa and therefore, he had killed her. The informant observed that Shyamal did not have a good character and that he had many affairs involving women. 2. On the basis of the aforementioned written report, the Officer-In-Charge of the police station registered the case referred to above and started investigation and on 13.6.2001, charges under Section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Finally the impugned Judgment was delivered. When we examine the evidences of record, we have to bear in mind that this case revolves around facts and occurrences which lead us to the inevitable conclusion that we are dealing with a case which is circumstantial in nature. 3. PW 1 is the informant Madhav Rajbanshi, he is a neighbour and also member of the Panchayat. His written report before the Police is based on what he heard from others in the house of Bhabataran Pramanik when he went there on hearing a commotion. He was told that the appellant had beaten up his wife and had throttled her to death. He also makes a mention in his written report that the appellant had confessed before him that he had killed his wife. This, in our opinion, is an extra judicial confession.;