DHANANJOY CHATTERJEE ALIAS DHANA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hetal Parekh a young 18 year old school-going girl was raped and murdered on 5/03/1990 between 5.30 and 5.45 p. m. in her Flat No. 3-A, on the third floor of 'anand Apartment'. The appellant was challaned and tried for rape and murder and also for an offence under Section 380 Indian Penal Code for committing theft of a wrist-watch from the said flat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found him guilty and convicted the appellant (i) for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death, (ii) for an offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, and (iii) for the offence under Section 380 Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The substantive sentences under S. 376 and 380 Indian Penal Code were ordered to run concurrently but were to ceaseto have any effect, in case the sentence of death for conviction of the appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was confirmed by the High court and the appellant was executed. Reference for confirmation of the death sentence was accordingly made to the High court. The appellant also preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the High court. The criminal appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the sentence of death was confirmed by the High court. On special leave being granted, the appellant, Dhananjoy Chatterjee Dhana, has filed this appeal.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the appellant Dhananjoy was one of the security guards deputed to guard the building 'anand Apartment' by M/s Security and Investigating Bureau of which Mr Shyam Karmakar Public Witness 21 was the proprietor. On 2/03/1990, Hetal deceased complained to her mother Yashmoti Parekh Public Witness 3 that the appellant had been teasing her on her way to and back from the school and had proposed to her on that day to accompany him to a cinema hall to watch a movie. She had made complaints about the teasing by the appellant to her mother previously also. Yashmoti Public Witness 3 told her husband Nagardas Parekh Public Witness 4/03/1990 about the behaviour of the appellant towards their daughter, who in turn complained to Shyam Karmakar Public Witness 21 and requested him to replace the appellant. At the asking of Shyam Karmakar Public Witness 21, who came to meet Nagardas Public Witness 4 in his flat in that connection, Public Witness 4 gave a written complaint also and the appellant was transferred and a transfer order posting the appellant at 'paras Apartment' was issued by Public Witness 21. Bijoy Thapa, a security guard at Paras Apartment was posted in his place, at Anand Apartment. The transfer was to take effect from 5/03/1990.

(3.) As per their normal routine, Nagardas Parekh Public Witness 4 and his son Bhawesh Parekh Public Witness 5, father and brother of the deceased respectively, left for their place of business and college in the morning on 5/03/1990. Bhawesh Public Witness 5 returned to the flat at about 11.30 a. m. and after taking his meals, left for his father's place of business as was his routine. The deceased returned to her flat after taking her examination at about I p. m. Yashmoti Public Witness 3, the mother of the deceased used to visit Laxmi Narayan Mandir between 5 and 5.30 p. m. daily. As usual, on the date of the occurrence also she left for the Temple at about 5.20 p. m. Hetal deceased was all alone in the flat at that time. The appellant, in spite of the order of transfer, did not report at Paras Apartment and instead performed his duties, as a security guard, at Anand Apartment between 6 a. m. and 2 p. m. on 5/03/1990. Shortly after Yashmoti Public Witness 3, the mother of the deceased left for the Temple, the appellant met Dasarath Murmu Public Witness 7, another security guard who was at that time on duty at the building and told him that he was going to Flat No. 3-A for contacting his office over the telephone. The appellant used the lift to go to the said flat. At about 5.45 p. m. , Pratap Chandra Pali Public Witness 6, supervisor of the Security and Investigating Bureau, visited Anand Apartment and enquired from Public Witness 7 whether Bijoy Thapa had performed his duty in place of the appellant in the morning but was told by Dasarath Public Witness 7, that Bijoy Thapa had not come to that building and that the duties had been performedby the appellant between 6 a. m. and 2 p. m. on that day. On inquiry by the supervisor as to where the appellant was, Public Witness 7 told the supervisor that at that particular time, the appellant had gone to Flat No. 3-A with a view to contact his office over the telephone. The supervisor Pratap Chandra Public Witness 6 asked Dasarath Public Witness 7 to call the appellant and since, he was not able to contact him through the intercom, there being no response from Flat No. 3-A, he called out the name of the appellant, who appeared at the balcony of Flat No. 3-A and on being told that Public Witness 6, the supervisor had come and wanted to see him, told him that he would come down. The appellant after a little while came down by the stairs and even though the supervisor Public Witness 6 and Dasarath Public Witness 7 were waiting for him, he hurriedly went past them and on being asked by Public Witness 6 that he wanted to talk to him, told him to come outside the gate and speak to him. The appellant on inquiry by Public Witness 6 as to why he had not obeyed the transfer order told him that due to some personal difficulty he could not report for duty at Paras Apartment. He was advised to take charge at Paras Apartment without fail the next day. The appellant thereafter left.