Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2002 (Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2002) on 23.08.2002.
(2.) Shortly put, the prosecution case is that Madhabi Mahato was a tenant under the de facto complainant (P.W.I) for the last four years at his house at Namabangi, P. S. Balurghat and her husband's brother accused Naren Mahato used to come to her and stay there. On 04.03.2001 at about 10/11.00 a.m. the accused came to the said tenanted room. At about 12.00 hrs. on hearing a groaning sound from the tenanted room, de facto complainant went there but found the room closed from inside. He came to learn from Bishnu Mahato, young child of Madhabi that accused Naren entered into the room taking Madhabi forcibly. On peeping through the window of the room complainant found Madhabi lying dead in a pool of blood on the floor and accused Naren inside. On hearing the shout raised by them the local people came and the matter was reported to the P. S. Police came, recovered the deadbody and arrested Naren who confessed before them that he had killed Madhabi with a bolt of the door. Hence, the accused was charged Under section 302 IPC.
(3.) The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws.and as contended by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr. PC, is that no such incident took place. The accused did not commit murder of Madhabi nor he entered into the house on the date of incident nor he confessed his guilt before the complainant and others.;