Point of Law: Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Injuries/Wounds/Weapons - Appeal against conviction - Injuries sustained by two deceased women have direct nexus with weapons of offence as recovered by police on basis of information supplied by appellant No.1, and further corroborates ocular testimonies of independent witnesses who were present at same time of discovery and recovery of these articles and weapons of offence.

JUDGMENT :

(Arindam Lodh, J)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, Gomati District in case No.ST 32(GT/U) of 2016 (T-1), whereby and whereunder the convict-appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and thereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and they were further convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation.

2. Brief facts:

2.1. R.K. Pur PS Case No. 2016RKP059, dated 26.05.2016 was registered by the Officer-in-Charge of R.K.Pur PS under Sections 342/302/201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Dulal Das. In the said complaint, he stated that his wife Baby Das along with one Smt. Manju Das of their village visited the house of accused Biplab Majumder on 24.05.2016 in the morning on the plea that one woman residing at the house of said Biplab was said to be the incarnation of ‘Goddess Manasha Devi’ [a Hindu Goddess]. His wife and Manju had been suffering from illness. But, on that day he had no information about the whereabouts of his wife. Her mobile phone was not responding as it was found to be switched off. On the next day i.e. on Wednesday, he went to Chandrapur and visited the house of the accused persons. After making a search over there, he did not get any information about them. In that situation, he again looked for his wife on Thursday i.e. on 26.05.2016 at 8 O’clock in the morning. He went to the house of accused persons and while making a thorough search he observed two dead bodies in the pond of the accused persons. He could identify the bodies as one of his wife and another of Manju Das. It was further stated in the complaint that he had the knowledge that the accused persons had committed many wrongful acts and both Biplab Majumder and his wife Smt. Manju Das had killed his wife and Manju Das and thereafter, drowned them in the pond of their house. He prayed for proper investigation.

3. Investigation was carried out. The investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand sketch map with index; examined and recorded the statements of available witnesses; arranged for recording the statements of the two daughters of the accused persons under Section 164(5) of CrPC where they have stated that their parents had killed both Baby Das and Manju Sukla Das. Biplab Majumder, the appellant No.1 had made disclosure statements. On the basis of such disclosure statements, the articles and weapons of offence used for committing the crime as well as the wearing apparels of the victims were recovered at the instance of the appellant No.1; arranged for postmortem examination of the dead bodies and viscera were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory for examination; collected reports and finally, on being prima facie satisfied with the complicity of the appellants with the crime submitted charge-sheet against the appellants.

4. Having taken cognizance, the case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur who transferred the case to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial.

5. At the commencement of trial, charges were framed against the accused persons, namely, Biplab Majumder and Smt. Santa Majunder under Sections 342/302/201 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and introduced some material documents and objects which were marked as exhibits on proof.

7. At the closure of recording evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 CrPC with reference to all the incriminating evidence and materials brought on record against them to which they denied all the accus