The testimonies of close relatives can be reliable, and omissions in police reports and lack of forensic examination are not fatal to the prosecution case when ocular testimony is credible and strong.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The Appellant Nishi Sarkar @ Santanu has preferred the present appeal challenging the Judgment dated 30.05.2001 and Order of Conviction dated 31.05.2001 (“Impugned Judgments”) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Session Trial Case No. XI (July) of 2000 (G.R. Case No. 488 of 2000). Vide the said Impugned Judgments, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

GENESIS OF THE CASE

2. On the written complaint filed by the de-facto Complainant i.e. the wife of the deceased vide G.D. Entry No. 1394 dated 19.03.2000, an FIR bearing No. 35 dated 20.03.2000 was registered at Liluah Police Station.

3. It has been stated by the Complainant in her complaint that on 19.03.2000 at 9:30 PM, the de-facto Complainant was sitting at the main door of her house. She saw her son-in-law, i.e. the Appellant/Accused, coming towards their house looking for her husband, Damu Bose alias Swapan Bose (deceased) with sharp edged weapons on his both hands, who was not present at home at that time. The Appellant was shouting that he would sever the head of Damu Bose alias Swapan Bose from his body. The Complainant closed the door of her house out of fear. The Appellant hammered the door with the weapons in his hands. The second daughter of the Complainant, namely, Rinki, who also happens to be the wife of the Appellant informed the Police about this incident over the telephone. In the meanwhile, the de-facto Complainant heard cries of her husband from outside calling her name and asking her to save him from the Appellant. She opened the door and saw that the accused was chasing her husband towards the house of one of the neighbours. The deceased slipped and fell down and the Appellant inflicted blows on the head and neck of her husband with the sharp-edged weapon in his right hand.

4. After killing the deceased in front of the Complainant, the Appellant ran away from the site with the blood-stained offending weapon in his hand. Later, the Police arrived and the deceased was taken to Howrah General Hospital. The Complainant has further stated that her daughter got married to the appellant against their wishes. However, unable to tolerate the torture of the Appellant and her father-in-law and mother-in-law, Rinki came back to her father’s house after one and half year of her marriage and resumed her studies. The Complainant further mentioned that the Appellant telephoned and expressed his intention to take back Rinki and disturbed her in many ways. However, it was clarified to the Appellant by deceased and his family that Rinki shall not go back to her matrimonial home. Due to this animosity, the Appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased which led to his death.

5. The deceased was declared dead at the Howrah General Hospital. PW-13, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, noted 13 injuries on the body of the deceased which were antemortem and homicidal in nature. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid injuries.

6. The police conducted investigation and filed the Charge Sheet. The Ld. Trial Court, vide Order dated 20.09.2000, framed charges against the Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to substantiate the guilt of the Appellant/Accused, the Prosecution examined 19 witnesses and exhibited several documents. It is the case of the Defence that the Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The Appellant examined himself on 03.05.2001.

8. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court vide the Impugned Judgment dated 30.05.2001 an