Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and suspicious conduct of the accused.

ORDER :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

Sadhana, the unfortunate housewife was married to Ashoke, the appellant herein in the month of Jaistha, 1398 B.S. i.e. May, 1991. Three months after the marriage she was subjected to mental and physical torture. She was admitted to the hospital in a case of poisoning and took refuge at her father's residence. The appellant herein, filed a divorce suit against her. The divorce proceeding continued for ten years. Finally, through persuasion from the Court, the matter was compromised and Sadhana returned to her matrimonial home. One and half years later, a female child, Puja, was born to the couple. Thereafter Ashoke started torturing Sadhana again. Unable to bear such torture, she complained to her brothers. On 30.08.2007 i.e. on 12th day of Bhadra, 1414 B.S., Ashoke came to the residence of Ram Prasad Mondal (P.W. 1), elder brother of Sadhana and informed that there were disturbances between him and Sadhana. He demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and threatened his in-laws he may leave Sadhana but not his family members. On the next day, i.e. on 31.08.2007 at 8 a.m. P.W. 1 received a phone call from Sadhana pleading him to take her back, failing which, she may be killed. The phone call was abruptly disconnected. Upon receiving such call, P.W. 1 with others went to the matrimonial home of Sadhana and found her dead body was lying in the verandah of the house. On the complaint of P.W. 1, first information report was lodged against the appellant and other in-laws namely Abhoy Ghosh, (elder brother-in-law of the victim), Mamata Ghosh (wife of Abhoy), Ban Behari Ghosh (younger brother-in-law), Kabita Ghosh (mother-in-law) and Shibani Ghosh (married sister-in-law) under Sections 498A and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Inquest and post mortem were held over the dead body of the victim. Appellant was arrested and charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and other accused persons.

2. In the course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. It was the specific defence of the appellant that the victim committed suicide after bolting the room from inside. He was not present at the house when the incident occurred. On hearing the information, the appellant along with one Mahadeb Ghosh (D.W. 2) entered the room by removing the false ceiling and brought down the dead body. To probabilise such defence, appellant examined himself as D.W. 1 and one Mahadeb Ghosh as D.W. 2.

3. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2009 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences to run concurrently. By the self-same judgment and order, the Judge acquitted the in-laws of the charges levelled against them.

4. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Mr. De, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, argues there is no direct evidence that the appellant had murdered his wife. On the other hand, circumstances appearing from the materials on record show that the victim had suffered unnatural death in the bedroom which was locked from inside. Subsequently, the appellant reached the place of occurrence and after removing the false ceiling had entered the room and brought down the dead body. These circumstances have not been explained away by the prosecution and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant which is based on vague surmises and co