IMPORTANT POINT
Remissness and inefficiency of the Investigating Agency should be no ground to acquit a person if there is enough evidence on record to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment :-

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The appellant – Kashinath Mondal was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh, Hooghly in S.T. Case No.66 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”).

Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for one year. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer RI for two years. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2. According to the prosecution, on the night of 30/10/1997, complainant - Tarak Chandra Mondal was sleeping in his house. His house has ground plus one floor. There are two rooms on the first floor of the said house. Out of the two rooms, one room was under the occupation of the appellant, who is his brother. The adjacent northern room of the first floor was under the occupation of complainant’s daughters – Pampa and Sampa. The entire ground floor premises were occupied by members of the complainant’s family which includes his mother. The ground floor premises were enclosed by iron grills. On the night intervening 30/10/1997 and 31/10/1997, Sampa, the second daughter of the complainant had gone out to watch a video show, which was held very close to the complainant’s house to celebrate Kali Pooja. After departure of Sampa, the entrance gate was closed by putting padlock. One key each of the said padlock was retained by the complainant and his brother. The eldest daughter of the complainant – Pampa was alone in her room on the first floor. The appellant was sleeping in his room. His wife had gone to her parent’s house. It was not possible for anyone to enter or leave the house without unlocking the gate.

3. At about 2.45 a.m., Sampa returned from the video show. On hearing the call of Sampa, complainant’s mother opened the gate. Sampa then straight away went to her room on the first floor. She saw her elder sister Pampa lying dead in a naked condition on the floor. She started shouting. On hearing her cries, the complainant and members of his family rushed to the upper floor. On seeing the dead body of Pampa, they also started shouting. At that time, the appellant came out from his room, which is situated adjacent to the room where the body of Pampa was lying. The neighbours of the complainant also came to the place of occurrence. Since at the relevant time, Pampa and the appellant were the only occupants of the first floor and since the exit doors of the house were locked from inside, the complainant firmly believed that the heinous crime of murder and rape had been committed only by the appellant. The complainant, then lodged a written complaint before O.C., Khanakul Police Station. In the complaint, the complainant disclosed that his relations with his brother Kashinath i.e. the appellant were strained on account of property dispute. He further stated that on a few occasions, quarrels had taken place between the appellant and his wife and daughters over domestic affairs and the appellant had threatened them of dire consequences.

4. On the basis of the said written complaint, police registered a case under sections 376 and 302 of the IPC against the appellant and, after completion of investigation, the appellant came to be charged as aforesaid. The appellant denied the prosecution case. He claimed to be tried. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly convicted the appellant as aforesaid. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raja Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Choudhary submitted that learned Sessions Judge