IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi DEATH REFERENCE NO. 04 Of 2018 STATE OF WEST BENGAL … APPELLANT Vs.

SRIMANTA TUNG … RESPONDENT With C.R.A. 684 of 2018 SRIMANTA TUNG … APPELLANT Vs.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL … RESPONDENT For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Gupta, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Santanu Talukdar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P., Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. A.P.P.

Mr. Suman De, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : 09.06.2025 Judgment on : 24.06.2025 sk sohel uddin

DDiagtiet:a 2l0y2 s5ig.0n6e.2d4 b 1y2 s:k1 6s:o4h5e +l 0u5d'd3i0n'

MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.:-

1. The death reference and the appeal are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction dated November 15, 2018 and order of sentence dated November 16, 2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 3 (12) of 2016 arising out of Sessions Case No. 67 (11) of 2016.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the appellant was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(i)(k)/ 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as of Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to death for the aforesaid offences.

3. On August 8, 2016, the de facto complainant, who was the uncle of the victim, lodged a written complaint with Haldia Police Station to the effect that victim used to work in house of appellant as maid servant. On August 8, 2016, the de facto complainant received a telephonic call from the appellant that his niece was seriously ill. Getting such information, the de facto complainant accompanied by his sister went to the house of appellant and found his niece lying dead in the bathroom of the house of appellant. Entire body of the victim was in burnt condition caused by fire. In the written complaint itself, the de facto complainant disclosed that he suspected that the appellant had committed rape upon the victim and set her ablaze.

4. On the basis of such complaint, Haldia Police Station Case No. 106 dated August 8, 2016, under Section 376 (2)(i)(k)/302 of the Indian Penal Code together with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was started against the appellant.

5. Police took up investigation, registered Unnatural Death Case, conducted inquest over the dead body of the victim, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet in the case under Sections 376 (2)(i) (k)/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 coupled with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Offences being exclusively triable by court of sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Session. Accordingly, on the basis of materials in the case diary, charges under Sections 376 (2)(i)(k)/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 coupled with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed against the appellant on December 22, 2016. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Consequently, he was put on trial.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges brought against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. He referred to the evidence of PW 6 and PW 9 as also the statement of such witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to contend that the prosecution has not brought forth any explanation as to the bathroom where the dead body of the victim was found, was locked from inside. It was broke open upon arrival of the witnesses. In such circumstances, the appellant could not have been held guilty by the learned trial court.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted in reference to the evidence of the prosecution that at the relevant point of time masons were working in the neighbourhood but nobody heard anything abou