The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and the appellant's post-incident conduct, despite the inadmissibility of his confession.

JUDGMENT :

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

1. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 26.02.2018 and 27.02.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 57/2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 159/2011 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Factual Matrix

The prosecution case against the appellant is as follows : -

2. In the night of 24.06.2010, Ashoke Murmu was in the house with his wife Hira (P.W 10) and their five year old daughter Tuktuki. Ashoke took out a katari (a sharp cutting weapon) and cut the throat of his daughter Tuktuki. Out of fear, wife Hira ran away and took refuge in a nearby house where she became senseless. After the incident Ashoke tried to commit suicide by cutting his throat but failed. In that condition, he went to Magra Police Station and surrendered himself. A.S.I Sanjib Kumar Mondal (P.W 8) detained him and diarized the incident. P.W 8 referred him to Magra BPHC for treatment.

3. In the meantime, local people assembled and one of them namely, Mangal Mandi (P.W 2) lodged written complaint resulting in the registration of Polba P.S case no. 56/10 dated 25.06.2010 under section 302 IPC against the appellant.

4. The appellant was arrested by the investigating officer, P.W 19. Statement of his wife Hira was recorded before the Magistrate. Blood-stained Katari and other articles were sent for FSL examination and charge sheet was filed. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet enclosing the FSL Report was also filed. Charge was framed under section 302 IPC.

5. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial prosecution examined 19 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the Trial Judge by impugned judgment and order convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Evidence on Record:-

6. P.W 10, Hira Murmu is the wife of the appellant and mother of the deceased child. She was present in the house when the incident occurred. She has been examined as P.W 10. She deposed her husband had slit the throat of her daughter with a scythe. She was sleeping inside the room when the incident occurred. Out of fear she took shelter in an adjacent house and became senseless. She was brought to her brother’s house. During cross-examination she stated she had resided with her husband for 4½ years. Cognates and agnates of her husband were residing around their house. She denied the fact that her husband used to work in Jharkhand or Purulia. She stated out of fear she had taken shelter in the house of her kakasoshur namely, Potu Murmu. She regained her senses in the evening. She had not informed anyone in the locality about the incident of her daughter being killed. After she was brought to her brother’s house he told her that her daughter was killed by her husband.

7. P.Ws. 1 to 5 are the local villagers. P.W 2 is the defacto complainant.

8. P.W 1 deposed hearing the news he came to the house of the appellant and found the beheaded body of the child. He did not find the appellant or his wife in the house. Police came to the spot. He signed on the inquest. During cross examination, he stated house of the appellant and his house are intervened by one house. He did not inform the Morol (village head) about the incident. Appellant used to reside at Santhal Pargona and send money.

9. P.W 2 deposed he was informed of the incident by the local people. He came and saw the dead body of appellant’s daughter. He also found one beheaded chicken and burnt bidis. He could not find the appellant and his wife. He lodged written complaint which was treated as F.I.R. He signed on the inquest. During cross examination he stated that his house was at a distance of 100 to 150 foot from the place of occurrence. Since two to three months prior to the incide