Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) -This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th May, 1998 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Surf, in Sessions Trial No.3 of December, 1997 arising out of Sessions Case No.26 of 1987 (Rampurhat P. S. Case No. 11 dated 30th March, 1985) convicting the appellant Anawarul Haque Siddique of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months. No separate sentences for the offence punishable under section 201 was passed.
(2.) The facts and circumstances briefly stated are that on 15th March, 1985, Saharabanu, aged about 17 years, was given in marriage to the appellant Anawarul. She was killed in the night between 29th and 30th March, 1985. The conviction is based primarily on confession both judicial and extra-judicial coupled with evidence of P.W.9 Dr. G. P.Kusri who found on 30th March, 1985 injuries on the person of the appellant which according to the appellant himself were inflicted by his wife while she was being throttled by him. Extra-judicial confession was also made in the presence of the members of the parties of complainant and the neighbours of the appellant besides the investigating officer. Some of the members of the party of the complainant as also the neighbours turned hostile during the trial. The learned trial Judge found the following circumstances to have been proved by the prosecution. "In the connection the following circumstances are against the interest of the accused, namely, (a) Unnatural death of the wife within 15 days of her marriage with the accused and that too in the house of the accused, (b) Judicial and extra-judicial confession of the accused, (c) statement of the accused while remaining in police custody leading to discovery of incriminating articles (d) no explanation as to how the accused sustained nail injuries over his person, (e) The P.M. report which indicates that the death was homicidal and ante-mortem in nature and caused by throttling, (f) Minimum delay in lodging FIR thereby excluding chance of implication (g) Initial attempt of the accused to exonerate himself from the liability of the murder of his wife and his subsequent confession thereby implicating himself in the commission of the murder of his wife by throttling, (h) The noting of black mark and swelling injuries over the forehead of the deceased by her father the P.W. 1 (i) Though the accused got ample opportunity to explain the incriminating situation against him but his non- availing of those chances, (j) The accused never retracted the confession."
(3.) Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Mukherjee in support of the appeal, took us through the evidence and advanced principally two submissions: a) that the appellant at the material point of time was an insane person and therefore he is entitled to exemption under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. b) the documentary evidence adduced in this case goes to establish that there are shortcomings giving scope for suspicion as to the bona fide of the investigating officer which he failed to explain while he was in the box.;