JUDGEMENT
A.K.Bhattacharya, J. -
(1.) The present appeal is directed against the
Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1993
(S.T. No.20 of 1995) on 20.12.1996.
(2.) The miniaturised version of the Prosecution is that on
27.10.1991, Sunday, at about 1.00 p.m. finding that his third daughter
Jayanti Ruidas, aged about ten years, who went to Saraika pond for
washing clothes at about 9.00 a.m., did not yet turn up, the defacto
complainant Sudhakar Ruidas (P.W, 1) went to the said pond in search
of her but could not find her. He informed the matter to his
neighbourers. Arun Ruidas (P.W. 3) informed him that he saw Jayanti
to wash clothes at the said pond and a number of drenched currency
notes kept on the grass near the bank of pond for drying up, and on his
query Jayanti reported that at the time of washing clothes, those
currency notes kept in the pocket of shirt became, drenched, for which
she kept those notes there for drying up in sun, that at that time accused
Sridhar Ruidas came there, enquired from Jayanti as to the reason
for keeping the said currency notes there and asking her to take back
the money from him from his house, he went away towards his house,
that Jayanti after washing clothes and keeping the same in the basket
entered into the house of Sridhar, and he left for grazing goats in the
, field. On receipt of this information, complainant after vigorous search
found Sridhar, enquired from him the whereabouts of Jayanti and asked
him to show his room, but he informed that he would show his room
after return from collecting his wages. As he did not turn up, it gave
rise to a suspicion and he being accompanied by his neighbourers and
father of Sridhar went to the house of Sridhar on the bank of pond and
found the same under lock and key. The members of the family of
Sridhar were not there. The neighbourers on breaking open the padlock
entered into the room with the complainant and father of Sridhar at
about 7.00 p.m. and found with the help of hajack light Jayanti lying
dead with ligature mark around her neck, saliva coming out of nose
and mouth, the basket containing washed clothes near her head and
goldnose-.ring and silver ear-rings were not in her person. Accused
Sridhar, who was unsuccessfully searched at different places,
committed murder of Jayanti by strangulation and misappropriated the
money and ornaments. Hence, the accused was charged under sections
302/379/411 IPC.
(3.) The defence case, as suggested to PWs., as deposed by D.Ws
and as contended by the accused during his examination under
section 313 Cr PC, is that as he had a difference of opinion with the
party-men of CPI(M), he left the village for his in-law's house at
Kumardi and stays there. He never resided at the P.O. Jayanti died
of suffocation due to sudden fall in the pond at tlte time of washing.
Defacto complainant Sudhakar himself kept her dead body in the
house of the accused taking advantage of his absence on that date.
He has been falsely implicated in this case.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.