Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 1198
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, RAGHUNATH RAY, JJ.
Patit Paban Mondal - Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Appeal No : C.R.A. No. 412 of 2004
Decided On : Sep 17, 2010
Biplab Mitra, Amajit De, Sushil Kumar Mahato
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Proof - Proof of guilt - Standard of proof - Plea of alibi - Burden of proof - Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Presumption of fact - Section 114 of the Evidence Act - Applicability of Section 34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
Tulsibala, wife of Dayamoy Mondal and daughter-in-law of Patit Paban Mondal, was subjected to severe physical and mental torture by her husband and father-in-law for several years after the birth of their son. She was found dead in her matrimonial home on 16.01.2001. The appellants were charged under Sections 498A/302/34, IPC and were convicted and sentenced accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the prosecution had established a strong prima facie case against the appellants and that the appellants had failed to offer any reasonable explanation for the victim's death. The Court also held that the appellants' conduct in concealing the victim's dead body for two days raised an adverse presumption against them. The Court further held that the appellants' plea of alibi was demolished by cogent, consistent, and convincing evidence of some of the PWs.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a strong prima facie case against the appellants? 2. Whether the appellants had offered any reasonable explanation for the victim's death? 3. Whether the appellants' conduct in concealing the victim's dead body for two days raised an adverse presumption against them? 4. Whether the appellants' plea of alibi was demolished by cogent, consistent, and convincing evidence of some of the PWs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution had established a strong prima facie case against the appellants by proving the following circumstances: (i) The victim was subjected to severe physical and mental torture by her husband and father-in-law for several years after the birth of their son. (ii) She was found dead in her matrimonial home on 16.01.2001. (iii) The appellants were present in their house at the time of the incident. (iv) The appellants failed to offer any reasonable explanation for the victim's death. 2. The appellants' conduct in concealing the victim's dead body for two days raised an adverse presumption against them. 3. The appellants' plea of alibi was demolished by cogent, consistent, and convincing evidence of some of the PWs.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Ray, J.
1. CONSPECTUS of Appeal This Jail Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 2(9) of 2003. By the aforementioned judgment and order impugned dated 26.02.04 and 27.02.04 appellant Nos. (1) Patit Paban Mondal (In short A1) and (2) Dayamoy Mondal (In short A2) were found guilty of charges under Sections 498A/302/34, IPC and both of them were convicted accordingly. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each in default whereof one month R.I. for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC. They were also further sentenced to suffer R. I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default whereof fifteen days R. I. more for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Sentences were to run concurrently. Background facts
2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal by these two appellants from Medinipore Central Correctional Home may be summarized as under:-
(1) One Ananda Mondal of village-Manipur, PS - Karimpur, Dist. Purulia, lodged an FIR on 18.01.2001 contending inter alia that her sister Tulsibala Mondal was married to Dayamoy Mondal, the eldest son of Patit Paban Mondal of Chandra village, within Saltora PS, District Bankura, in the year 1996. She was, however, subjected, to severe physical and mental torture by her husband and in-laws on various pretexts after the birth of a male child. Whenever she visited the informant's house, she used to narrate in details how she was tormented in her matrimonial home and also used to wail miserably by saying that her in-laws won't let her live. All on a sudden at 2 O'clock her father-in-law had been to his house to tell them that their sister had committed suicide around 10 O'clock. They rushed to their sister's house and found her dead.
On the basis of such allegations as above Saltora PS Case No. 03 dated 18.01.01 under Sections 498A/306/34, IPC was registered for investigation against both the appellants and the case was endorsed to Debasis Ray, S.I. for investigation. Investigation
3. IN course of investigation the I.O. prepared a rough sketch map with index of the P.O. (Exhibit 8) and also tagged the U/D Case No. 2 dated 17.01.01., with the afore-mentioned specific PS case. He also held Inquest over the dead body of the victim in the house of appellants at village Chandra on 17.01.01 and prepared Inquest Report (Exhibit 9). During investigation he also examined available witnesses at the P.O. and also prepared the seizure list (Exhibit 10). The opinion of the autopsy surgeon was also collected by him and on completion of investigation he submitted the charge- sheet under Sections 498A/302/34, IPC against A1 and A2 in G. R. Case No. 28/01. Since accused persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 498A/ 302/34, IPC which are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in terms of Section 209, Cr. P.C. by the learned S.D.J.M. Bankura vide order dated 20.01.03. Heads of charge
4. BOTH the appellants were charged under Section 498A, IPC as also under Section 302/34, IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura, vide order dated 06.09.03. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly both of them were directed to answer charges so framed against them as follows :-
"First :- That you on or about 13 years ago prior to 8.01.2001 marriage of Tulsibala was held with you Dayamoy as per Hindu Marriage religions rites and customs and since then she had been residing with you in your house at village Chandra P.S. Saltora Dt. Bankura and during her stay till her death, you being the husband and father-in-law of Tulsibala, in furtherance of your common intention used to torture upon her mentally and physically which was of such a nature (illegible) likely to drive her away from
