- (1.) Subject matter of challenge in the instant criminal appeal is a judgement dated 17th December, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Sessions Case No.50 of 2011/ Sessions Trial No.14 of 2012 whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Smt. Mary Martha Lakra wife of Shri M. Thangadurai. PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
(2.) The defacto-complainant Smt. Soombavally is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She was residing at Makerthivally in her own house along with her son Thangadurai, daughter-in-law Mary, and her three grand children. On 17.04.2011 at about 8.00 p.m. the defacto-complainant went to her daughter's house after taking dinner. At the relevant time the deceased daughter-in-law and her three children were at home. The son of the defacto-complainant was working in a private firm and on the day of the incident he was at Mayabunder. At about 10.00 p.m. the defactocomplainant returned to her house. When she reached near the nallah close to her house she heard her grand children weeping. Upon inquiring from the children she came to know from Sandhya (elder grand daughter) that her daughter-in-law had died and the appellant/convict Ganapathy had murdered her. The defacto-complainant rushed inside the house and found the deceased lying dead in her bedroom in a pool of blood. Then the defacto-complainant went to her daughter's house and told her about the incident. On the following day i.e. 18.04.2011 the police went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant which is the fardbayan, on the basis of which FIR was registered on the same day at about 10.30 am. Police received information from an informer that the convict/appellant was seen near Uttara Jetty and subsequently he was arrested on 18.04.2011. The appellant made an extra judicial confession before the police in the presence of witnesses and also furnished information which led to the recovery of the offending weapon i.e. dao and his blood stained wearing apparels from Uttara corner. Charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under section 302 IPC and consequently charge was framed under section 302 IPC on 30.07.2012. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses however no defence witnesses were adduced. PROSECUTION WITNESSES PW-1 Kumari T. Sandhya daughter of the deceased and the sole eye witness. PW-2 Smt. Soombavally defacto-complainant and motherin-law of the deceased PW-3 Manjula daughter of the defactocomplainant PW-4 Mithun Biswas Chance witness PW-5 Sanjay Das Up-pradhan of Uttara Gram Panchayat. Witness of confessional statement by the appellant and subsequent recovery PW-6 Anand Kumar declared hostile PW-7 Nedum Chelican PW-8 M.Thanga Durai husband of the deceased PW-9 Dr. A.K.Das conducted the post mortem examination PW-10 K.Ganesh Member of Gram panchayat Uttara Kadamtala. Witness of confessional statement by the appellant and subsequent recovery PW-11 Anjana Mondal scribe of the FIR PW-12 Inspector Rizwan Hassan first investigating officer ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE COUNSELS
(3.) Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant made the following submissions before us: 1. Test identification parade of the appellant was not conducted. 2. The Trial Court convicted the appellant upon the evidence of a child witness i.e. PW-l while ignoring some major contradictions appearing in the evidence of PW-5 and PW-l0. 3. According to the CFSL report human blood was not found on the blood stained wearing apparels of the appellant and the offending weapon i.e. dao which were allegedly recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant before the police. Thus no reliance can be placed upon these articles recovered consequent to the confessional statement. 4. In the fardbayan it was stated that the victim was killed by the appellant with a 'sharp object', whereas PW-l stated that her mother was assaulted with phookni and the appellant caught hold of her hair and then cut her with the dao. 5. The motive of the crime could not be established by the prosecution and thus the conviction of the appellant should be set aside and he should be set free by giving him benefit of doubt.;