Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, ASHA ARORA, JJ.
Prem Chand Barman (In Jail) - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. No. 875 of 2013
Decided on : 21-09-2016
CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based on - Legality - Ingredients - Appreciation of Evidence - Post Occurrence Conduct - Recovery of Weapon of Offence - Motive - Silence of Accused during Examination under Section 313 CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case was that the appellant was seen leaving the scene of the crime with a bloodstained weapon, and that the murder weapon was recovered from his possession. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the following circumstances to convict the appellant: - The appellant was seen leaving the scene of the crime with a bloodstained weapon. - The murder weapon was recovered from the appellant's possession. - The appellant had a motive to kill his wife, as he suspected her of having an affair with his brother. - The appellant remained silent when questioned about the circumstances of the crime under section 313 of the CrPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant had a motive to kill his wife. 3. Whether the appellant's silence under section 313 of the CrPC could be used against him.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the following circumstances: - The appellant was seen leaving the scene of the crime with a bloodstained weapon. - The murder weapon was recovered from the appellant's possession. - The appellant had a motive to kill his wife, as he suspected her of having an affair with his brother. - The appellant remained silent when questioned about the circumstances of the crime under section 313 of the CrPC. 2. The court held that the appellant had a motive to kill his wife, as he suspected her of having an affair with his brother. 3. The court held that the appellant's silence under section 313 of the CrPC could be used against him, as it was an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
ASHA ARORA, J.
1. The appeal at the instance of the accused/appellant is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12th August, 2013 and 13th August 2013 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 19(06) 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 175 of 2012 whereby the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the aforesaid offence.
2. The factual scenario of the prosecution case in brief is as follows:
On 6th December 2011 at 13.40 hours the complainant Soney Barman lodged a written complaint at Mathabhanga Police Station stating that his daughter Shyamali Barman was given in marriage to accused Prem Chand Barman about 7/8 years ago. After marriage his daughter started leading conjugal life in her matrimonial home and had two sons aged about 4½ years and 2 years. The accused was engaged in the work of making ‘pandals’ in different places. He would leave the house without informing and was away for about seven months. The accused would suspect his wife without any reason. After returning home 3/4 days prior to the date of incident, accused started quarrelling with his wife. On 6th December, 2011 at about 11.30 A.M while the victim (wife of accused) was lifting cow dung in front of the house, the accused assaulted her with a ‘kodal’ (spade) in consequence of which she died on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint of Soney Barman (PW 1), the father of the deceased victim, Mathabhanga Police Station Case No. 385 of 2011 dated 06/12/2011 under section 302 of the IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. Investigation into the case by Sub-Inspector Sujan Narjinary (PW 11) culminated in the submission of the charge sheet under section 302 of the IPC against the accused/appellant.
3. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar and there from it was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar for trial and disposal. The Trial Court framed the charge for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC against the accused/ appellant who pleaded not guilty to the arraignment and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and exhibited several documents. Out of these witnesses, PW 1 Soney Barman is the father of the deceased who lodged the FIR (exhibit 1). PW 2 Sushil Barman and PW 3 Sudhin Barman are the co-villagers of the accused. These two witnesses have categorically stated in their evidence that they did not see the incident. PW 4 Saroda Barman is the cousin brother of accused who resides in the same village. This witness also has no personal knowledge regarding the incident. PW 5 Kesob chandra Barman is another co-villager of accused whose evidence is hearsay. Having heard about the incident from PW 1, this witness went to the house of accused and found the dead body of the victim lying in front of the house. He testified regarding the seizure of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence as well as the arrest of the accused by the police in his presence PW 6 Abdul Gani is yet another co-villager of accused having no direct knowledge of the incident. PW 7 Manik Dey witnessed the inquest on the dead body of the victim. He also witnessed the seizure of the weapon of offence (kodal) from the accused. PW 8 Asit Ranjan Roy and PW 10 Bablu Barman are the two witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused proceeding towards the tea garden with a kodal in his hand while they were going to the place of occurrence on hearing hue and cry. According to these two witnesses, when they reached the house of accused, they found his wife lying dead in front of his house.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
