- (1.) The death reference under Section 366(1) Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Appeal aforesaid of the sole appellant Amir Chakrabarty @ Amit Chakrabarty under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.264/05, corresponding to Sessions Trial No.131/06 are taken up together by which the appellant Amir Chakrabarty @ Amit Chakrabarty was convicted under Sections 376/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3(2) (v) and 3(2)(vi) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Apart from sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant in different counts, under Sections 376/201 of the Indian Penal Code, he was awarded death sentence for his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Sri Vijay Shanker Singh, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad on 15.4.2010.
(2.) Prosecution story in short was that Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.264/05 was registered on 27.12.2005 on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant P.W.-13 Astami Devi recorded on the same day. She narrated therein that on 26.12.2005 at about 7:30 o'clock in the night her daughter Urmila Kumari, 8 years (since deceased) was doing her self study with her companion Rukmani Kumari, about 6 years at Mansa temple. At that time the informant was indulged in gossiping with her co-sister Golfi Devi, Bibi Bauri and Sakhi Devi sitting there by the side of the said temple at some distance. In the meantime, Amir Chakrabarty @ Amit Chakrabarty came to Mansa Mandir and took away her daughter Urmila Kumari by persuading that her sister-in-law was calling to serve her bread to eat. When Urmila Kumari did not return back for a long time, the informant asked her son Raju Bauri to go and search her. She further narrated that her co-sister and daughter-in-law also came out in search of Urmila Kumari in the neighbour. During course of search, Amir Chakrabarty @ Amit Chakrabarty was seen coming from the river side. When he was confronted to answer the whereabouts of Urmila Kumari, he became nervous and ran away. Some of the witnesses chased and followed him, whereas other set of witnesses went towards river in search and found the dead body of Urmila Kumari on the bank of river. The body was nude and pus like substance was coming out from her private part. The informant alleged that Amir Chakrabarty @ Amit Chakrabarty committed murder of her daughter after ravishing her and threw the dead body in the water with the intention to screen it. Informant put her signature on her fardbeyan which was attested by P.W.-2 Josana Devi. A case was registered for the offence under Sections 376/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against Amir Chakrabarty @ Amit Chakrabarty on her Fardbeyan and after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against him under Sections 376/302/201 Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3 (xii) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Indrajit Sinha submitted that there was no direct evidence and the appellant was convicted only on the basis of suspicion raised against him and the circumstantial evidence. The death sentence that was awarded to him was without considering the settled principles of law and the instant case did not come within the category of the rarest of rare case. Learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that there was vital contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as such, no reliance could have been placed upon such statements. Sentence awarded to the appellant was excessive and too harsh to be executed and the learned trial Judge failed to take into consideration the mitigating circumstances that there was no eyewitness of the occurrence. Learned trial Judge further erred by relying upon the evidence of last seen, which was not conclusive in nature. The prosecution failed to connect that it was none other than the appellant Amit Chakrabarty who committed murder and the prosecution further failed to point out motive of the appellant behind such killing. The post mortem report did not entail that victim was ravished before her death. Therefore, there was missing link of the chain of circumstances and it could not be proved that the appellant committed murder of a minor girl. Advancing his argument Mr. Sinha the learned counsel further explained that there was no material on the record to attract the conviction of the appellant for the charge under Sections 3(2) (v) and 3(2) (vi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as it was no where alleged that the alleged offence was committed only because Urmila Kumari was a girl who belonged to Scheduled Caste.;