RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDER, J. - (1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment, and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (14th Court) Alipore on 11-2-94 in Sessions Trial No. 1(2) 93. By the impugned Judgment and order of conviction, ld. Court below found both the appellants 1 and 2 to be guilty and sentenced appellant No. 1 to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and also sentenced appellant No. 2 to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, both the appellants being son and mother respectively have preferred the instant appeal.
(2.) Prosecution case in brief was that the deceased-girl Toton alias Subhasini Roy, aged about 22 years, and appellant No. 1 Chottu alias Sudip Dey were in love with each other. Appellant No. 1 had an Egg Roll Shop at the crossing of Rashbehari Avenue and Satish Mukherjee Road, Calcutta. He wanted to marry the deceased and for the said purpose visited the house of the deceased's father and wanted some time for the said purpose from the father of the deceased-girl. Subsequently appellant No. 1 demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 from the father through the deceased and it was arranged that a friend of the father of the deceased would pay the said sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to appellant No. 1 at the time of marriage of appellant No. 1 with the deceased by registration. On a Chaitra Sankranti Day (13-4-90), the deceased left her home telling her mother that she would visit the Egg Roll Shop of the appellant No. 1 for the purpose of cleaning the said shop as the following day was 1st Baisakh, an auspicious day. The deceased, however, told her mother that she would come back to her father's place on that day itself (13-4-90) in the night. But unfortunately the deceased did not come back to her father's house in the night on that date. On 14-4-90 the deceased was admitted with severe burn injuries on her person in the Sambhu Nath Pandit Hospital, Calcutta. In the Hospital the deceased made a dying declaration to the police to the effect that on that date itself (14-4-90) at about 12-30 A.M. appellant No. 1 poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. In the dying declaration it was also stated by her that appellant No. 2 being the mother of appellant No. 1 asked appellant No. 1 to set the deceased on fire. At that time the deceased was in front of Satish Mukherjee Road and Rashbehari Avenue Junction. The said dying declaration was treated by the police as FIR and accordingly Tollygunj Police Station Case No. 192, dated 14-4-90 under Section 307/34, IPC was registered against both the appellants. Unfortunately on 14-4-90 at 8.50 hours in the morning the deceased breathed her last at Sambhu Nath Pandit Hospital, Calcutta. After investigation of the case the police submitted a charge-sheet against both the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302/34, IPC. At the time of trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302, IPC against appellant No. 1 and under Section 302 read with Section 114, IPC against appellant No. 2. After conclusion of trial, Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore convicted and sentenced appellant No. 1 to suffer imprisonment for life for an offenceunder Section 302, IPC but sentenced appellant No. 2 to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/109, IPC instead of under Section 302/114, IPC.
(3.) In this case, prosecution examined as many as 18 (eighteen) witnesses in support of its case. Defence, however, did not examine any witness on its side at the time of trial.;