Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 21st April, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Trial No. 15/1989 arising out of Sessions Case No. 2 of 1989 convicting the accused Bigna Lohar under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, the convict has come up in appeal.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows: On 29th March 1986 which was the day of holi festival, the accused Bigna Lohar called at the house of Suresh and took him away. Suresh thereafter never came back. His dead body on the following day was recovered from the house of the accused Bigna Lohar. The victim was killed by strangulation. There were also signs of severe assault. The learned Trial Judge summarized his conclusion as follows: The taking away of the victim Suresh Lohar by the accused from the house of the P.W.1 to his own house at Indong Tea Estate then recovery of the dead body in front of the door of his house on the very next day clearly indicate that the alleged murder was in fact caused by him. He has not furnished any convincing explanation as to how the dead body of the victim was brought in front of his door. Secondly, his long absence after the alleged recovery of the dead body has further strengthened the conclusion that he committed murder of the victim Suresh Lohar and tried to evade the arrest till 26.6.86 when he was arrested by the I.O. (P.W.8). Mr. Dastoor, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal advanced the following submissions: The evidence of the P.W.1, father of the deceased Suresh, is inconsistent with the contents of the written complaint lodged with the police contemporaneously. Mr. Dastoor added that in the written complaint except for alleging that the appellant had taken away his son and that the body of his son was found in the house of Bigna Lohar, there is practically no other allegation. Whereas in the evidence given in Court, the P.W.1 has given graphic details as to how was his son killed. Mr. Dastoor, therefore, submitted that the evidence of the P.W.1 cannot be believed.
(3.) WE are unable to accept this submission. The defacto complainant P.W.1, one should not forget is a worker in a Tea Estate and is also an illiterate person. The written complaint was filed within hours after he discovered the dead body of his son. Whereas the evidence in the Court was given almost five years after the incident. He must have come across stories as to how was his son killed. He was repeating them when he came to give evidence. But the main fabric of the case namely the victim was taken away by the appellant and the body of the victim was found in the house of the appellant remained the same. The defacto complainant has added greater details, the truth whereof was not enquired into during his cross -examination. Those details may not have been corroborated by his written complaint. The main fabric of the case has however been corroborated by the P.W.8 the I.O. who immediately went to the P.O. His evidence in that regard is as follows: I visited the P.O. at Indong T.E and held the inquest over the dead body of the victim Suresh Lobar which was found in front of the door of Bigna Lohar.;