Indrajit Chatterjee, J. - (1.) I respectfully differ with the findings of my sister Judge in which she has been pleased to acquit the present accused convict in respect of both the charges punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as the Code). Myself prefer to write a separate judgment.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded at the time of trial can be stated in brief thus: "That one suo motu FIR was lodged by one Dhruba Pradhan, Sub -Inspector of police, then attached to Kalchini Police Station within the district of Jalpaiguri on 09.04.1999 at 10.10 hours against the appellant who was one ASI of police who used to reside in the compound of the police station, giving rise to Kalichini P.S Case No. 23 of 1999 under Section 302 and 201 of the Code. Before the FIR was lodged one UD case No. 07/1999 dated 08.04.1999 was started at 21.20 hours." This witness Dhruba Pradhan also held inquest on the dead body of the victim, Alo Das aged 38 years, the wife of the appellant at the quarters of the appellant. Unfortunately, for the prosecution this Dhruba Pradhan was not examined by the public prosecutor who conducted the prosecution case before the trial court and naturally the inquest report and the F.I.R. were not marked as exhibits. PW 6 was acquainted with the hand writing of that Dhruba Pradhan but he only proved his endorsement in the F.I.R.
(3.) ON the transfer of the first I.O. the further investigation of this case was taken up by PW 7 who practically did nothing but submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Code. The case was committed before the Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri and Sessions case No. 102/03 was registered wherefrom it was transferred to Additional Session Judge, Alipurduar, of the same district. The charge was framed in respect of Sections 302 and 201 of the Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and Sessions Trial No. 45/2003 of that court commenced.;