N. K. BATABYAL, NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27-1-94 passed by the ld Addl. Sessions Judge, Tamluk, Dist. Midnapur convicting the appellant for an offence under Ss. 302/201 of the I. P. C. and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No. 1 (1)/93; arising out of G. R. Case No 492 of 1985. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Smt. Jyotsna Mal worked in the house of one Sachin Mondal as a maid-servant. Soon after her arrival in the house, troubles started between Gita Rani, deceased-wife of Sachin Mondal and Smt. Jyotsna Mal, who is the appellant here. On 31st May, 1985, at night, Gita Rani was murdered and her dead-body was thrown into the river Keleghai flowing by the side of Sachin's house. On the following day, the dead-body of Gita Rani Mondal was found floating near the sluice Gate of a canal connected with the river. The further prosecution case is that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession in presence of a large number of persons assembled at the house of Sachin stating that on the night of occurrence, she had killed Gita Rani with a Katari when Gita Rani was sleeping just outside her bed-room and threw her dead body in a gunny bag into the river, Keleghai flowing by the side of the house. She also made a judicial confession to the same effect later on.

( 2 ) CHARGE under Ss. 302/201, I. P. C. was framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.

( 3 ) THE learned Trial Judge has found the appellant guilty of committing the offence under Ss. 302/201 of I. P. C. and has convicted and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment for life for commission of an offence under S. 302 of I. P. C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the commission of an offence under S. 201, I. P. C. subject to the provisions of S. 428. Cr. P. C. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentences passed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The learned advocate for the appellant and the learned State advocate have been heard at length.

( 5 ) THE special feature of the case is that there is no direct evidence of the perpetration of the offence. The only evidence forth-coming is extra-judicial confession of the appellant, judicial confession recorded by a competent Magistrate under S. 164, Cr. P C. and circumstantial evidence. The learned advocate for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the discrepancies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as also to the fact that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the oral evidence properly, that the learned Magistrate recording the statement under S. 164, Cr. P. C. did not specifically ask the appellant what prompted her to make the confessiona1 statement and that the learned Magistrate did not ascertain before recording the statement whether any Police Officer met the appellant when she was brought from the Jail custody and produced before the learned Magistrate immediately before the recording of her statement under S. 164, Cr. P. C. and that the learned Trial Judge did not consider other material circumstances of the case and failed to examine the appellant properly under S. 313, Cr. P. C. The learned State advocate has submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant and that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

( 6 ) FROM the evidence on record, it transpires that Sachin Mondal, husband of deceased Gita Rani is a man of modest means and runs a village grocery-shop. There is only one bed room in his house where Sachin and Gita Rani with children as also the appellant who was an adult at the material time slept at night. On the night of occurrence, i. e. 31st May, 1985, the daughters of Sachin and the appellant were sleeping inside the room and as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document