- (1.) This appeal has been filed from the order of conviction and sentence dated 30th June, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Arambagh, in Sessions Trial No. 2/2007 whereby and whereunder the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 302/34/498A I.P.C. For the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C., the accused appellants were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C., the accused appellant No. 1 was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for another six months. The accused appellant no. 2 was discharged of the offence under section 498A I.P.C.
(2.) The case of the prosecution was that the accused appellant no. 1 was married to the victim 161/2 years ago and had two sons out of their wed-lock. They were a happily married couple but for the past six months there was discord between them and the reason for this discord was the accused appellant no. 2 who had made an indecent proposal. The accused appellant no. 2 was a friend of the accused appellant no. 1. The reason for such indecent proposal was the loan of Rs. 12,000/- given by the accused appellant no. 2 to the appellant no. 1 and in the event the indecent proposal was acceded to by the victim, the loan would be waived and in addition one maund of paddy would also be given. The accused appellant no. 1 on several occasions had pressurized the victim to accede to the indecent proposal of the accused appellant no. 2. This was refused by the victim, since the last six months and unable to withstand the pressure the victim, ultimately visited her paternal home and informed her relatives of the said indecent proposal on 23rd March, 2006. As advised on 24th March, 2006, she returned to her matrimonial home and disclosed the factum of the indecent proposal to the villagers and in-laws who fixed a salisi in the evening of 25th March, 2006 but before the salisi could take place at 10-30 hrs on 25th March, 2006, the dead body of the victim was found in her bed room. The relatives of the victim were informed. Prior thereto, Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station was also informed and G.D. entry was made. Pursuant thereto the police personnel visited the P.O. The relatives of the victim also reached the P.O.. On their arrival the police was already present at the P.O. On the basis of the information received by the police personnel, U.D. case No. 11 of 2006 dated 25th March, 2006 was started at 15-25 hours and thereafter inquest was undertaken at 15-35 hours on the same day. The inquest report was filed and body of the victim sent for postmortem purposes. An F.I.R. was filed by P.W. 1, brother of the victim and was handed at the P.O. at 14-45 hours. which was forwarded to the Goghat Police station through constable C/1691 Anil Sarkar for starting a case under Sections 498A/302/34 I.P.C. The said complaint was thereafter received at 15-25 hours through C/1691 and Goghat Police Station Case No. 33 of 2006 was started. On the basis of the said case, investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed.
(3.) The case was then committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, Hooghly who transferred the case to the Additional sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Arambagh. Charges were framed under Section 498A I.P.C. as against the accused appellant no. 1 and Sections 302/34 I.P.C. as against both the accused appellants which were read out and explained to the accused appellants when each of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the basis of the aforesaid, Trial commenced and the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Documents were also proved and exhibited. Both the accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was adduced. Exhibit "A" was a document adduced on behalf of the defence. On the basis of the oral so also documentary evidence, the order of conviction and sentence was passed. Counsel for the accused appellants submits that at 13-45 hrs on 25th March, 2006 pursuant to an anonymous telephone call received at 14-45 hrs. a complaint was received at the P.O. At 15-25 hrs a G.D. entry was made and it is only after that the police personnel left for the P.O. Therefore, it is unbelievable that having registered the G.D. at 15-25 hrs the I.O. could have left the Police Station at the said hr and inquest could have been started at 15-35 hours. Therefore, the inquest was not made at 15-35 hrs as finds mention in the report.;