Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Trial No.37 of 2001 arising out of Sessions Case No.128 of2001 sentencing the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) One Pravas Das lodged complaint on 17.2.2001 with the O.C., Manikchak Police Station alleging that on that day at about 6.15 a.m. his sister Kumari Shanti Das (Buri) aged 17 years went to attend private tuition in the house of Netai Karmakar at Mathurapur. While she was going through Dakatia Garden, Shanti Das was stabbed and lying on the ground. On getting information the informant went to the place of occurrence at about 6.25 a.m. and found that his sister was lying with the 'vojali' penetrated in her back. That apart, Yunustulla, Nemai Ghosh and others informed him that Sukumar Mahara stabbed Shanti Das 4-5 times with the help of knife and thereafter Sukumar fled away. The villagers could not apprehend him. The victim was taken to Manikchak Hospital with bleeding injury on her person and the doctors declared her dead. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Manikchak P.S.Case No. 17 of 2001 dated 17.2.2001 was started under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the materials-on-record was pleased to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence holding that at least six injuries were found on the person of the deceased both on her front as well as back and that there was no room for doubt over the death of Shanti due to repeated stabbing and that it was homicidal in nature. The learned Judge further held that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.2 who was very much present at the place of occurrence and that the contradiction that was sought to be established by the learned defence counsel to discredit the testimony of P.W.2, was not at all vital to impeach the credibility of P.W.2. The learned Judge held that the prosecution led cogent and reliable evidence to prove the charge against the accused.;