Conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence without established motive and reliability issues in witness testimony is inadequate for affirming guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24th July, 2014 and order of sentence dated 25th July, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 5(5)07 arising out of Sessions Case No. 5(Feb)2007.

2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two years for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 500/- in default for one month for commission of offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

THE PROSECUTION CASE:

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29th May, 2005, the victim Dulal Chandra Bera left his house after dinner at about 10:00 P.M. to attend a local religious festival called “Mansha Puja”. Several people of the village were gathered at the Puja Mandap, and music was playing loudly in several microphones installed thereat.

4. The next day, early in the morning, one Chandan Bera (PW-4), who went to relieve and wash himself at the pond of one Hrishikesh Hait, found the body of the victim floating thereat. He immediately rushed towards the house of the deceased and informed both the mother (PW-8) and wife (PW- 1) of the deceased. He, along with PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW- 8 and several other villagers and PW-1 rushed back to the said pond. They struggled for an hour to retrieve the body of the victim from the pond. They brought the body to the house of the victim. PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, as well as PW-1, found ligature marks on the neck of the victim. Some of the aforesaid witnesses found the back of the ears of the victim swollen.

5. PW-4 is stated to have gone to Nandakumar Police Station and had informed the Police. PW-1 is also stated to have given a written complaint to Nandakumar Police Station, who registered a UD Case No. 27 of 2005 dated 29.05.2005. The police arrived at the house of the victim and inquest was conducted by PW-10. The Inquest Officer found ligature marks on the body of the victim. He did not find any other injury. None of the witnesses to the inquest and persons present there, namely, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW- 5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8, told the Investigating Officer about the circumstances under which the victim died. The inquest report was witnessed by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4

6. The body of the victim was dispatched to the Tamluk Sadar Hospital on 29th May, 2005. It was received by the Post Mortem Doctor on 30th May, 2005 at about 2:45 P.M. Post Mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased on 31st May, 2005 at 11:00 A.M. Post Mortem Doctor (PW-11) deposed that he found no injuries on the back of the head of the victim. A ligature mark on the neck of the victim was found and it was declared that the death occurred due to asphyxia, antemortem and homicidal in nature. It was therefore concluded that the victim was strangulated first and then thrown into the pond since no water was found in the lungs of the deceased.

7. On the same day i.e. on 29th May, 2005, PW-1 to PW-8 and several others went to search for the appellant in his house and were informed that he had left the previous night and did not return. When the appellant returned to his house, 2-3 days later (as deposed by PW-1 and PW-2) or 3-4 days later (as deposed by PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8), he was summoned to a local village ‘Salishi’ (gathering of elderly persons of the village for dispute res