ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) IN a joint trial held before a Sessions Court the appellant Nantu Roy @ Kalyan Roy was found guilty on two counts, firstly, for committing offence punishable under Section 302/120B IPC and then for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine with default clause on both counts. Whereas the accused Aparajita Bose @ Munmun was found guilty under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and thereunder sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine with default clause. The convict Nantu Roy @ Kalyan Roy in C.R.A. No. 522 of 2003 challenged his conviction and sentence and after admission of appeal, a Division Bench of this Court on August 17, 2005 suspended his sentence and released him on bail pending hearing of the appeal. Similarly, the convict Aparajita Bose @ Munmun challenged her conviction and sentence in C.R.A. No. 525 of 2003. The said appeal was admitted, but on 11th of November, 2005 a Coordinate Bench turned down her prayer for suspension of sentence. Finally, on 10.4.2013 her sentence was suspended by this High Court and she was released on bail as there was no progress in the appeal and after her detention in custody for more than 12 1/2 years and on the background the co -convict the principal accused was on bail.
(2.) IN gist the prosecution case goes like this; "On May 26, 2000 at around 9.30 p.m. some passers -by while crossing Khanaberia village within the Police Station Tiljala, on hearing human screaming rushed towards that direction and found a person lying on the road with bleeding injuries. When the injured appealed to them to save his life and told that he had his wife and two minor children and it was one Kalyan Roy @ Nantu Roy with accused Gautam assaulted him and caused those injuries at the instigation of his wife Aparajita Bose @ Munmun, who developed an extra -marital affairs with the accused Kalyan Roy. Thereafter, those passers -by called a police patrol van and removed the injured to the hospital in the said van. However, at the hospital the injured was declared brought dead. During investigation police examined the said passers -by and the police personnels who removed him to the hospital in a police vehicle. Since the dead body was cremated before identification, the victim was identified by his mother from the photograph of the dead body, as her son Kunal and from his personal belongings seized from his person and the place of occurrence. In the meantime, there was wide publications about the incident, in print as well as in electronic media that the victim was allegedly killed by the appellant Kalyan Roy with the help of one Gautam at the instigation of his wife Aparajita Bose @ Munmun who developed a love affairs with the accused Kalyan and wanted to get rid of him. Before her arrest the accused Aparajita Bose @ Munmun allegedly confessed her guilt before her mother -in -law and others. Police also recovered a written document appears to be the purported last Will of the victim from his office drawer. After conclusion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the appellants showing the co -accused Gautam as absconder.
(3.) IN the trial the prosecution to prove its case completely relied on circumstantial evidence and to prove those circumstances examined as many as 41 witnesses. Whereas no witness was examined in his defence by the convict Nantu Roy @ Kalyan Roy, however, the convict Aparajita Bose @ Munmun examined herself as DW/1 and her brother was examined as a Court witness.;