Gauhati High Court
Badsha Mandal vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 7 June, 2022
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam, Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010043762017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./387/2017
BADSHA MANDAL
S/O LATE JAFAR MONDAL, R/O VILL. NO. 1 SALABILA, P.O. AMBARI, P.S.
MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR
REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM
2:AMIR ALI
S/O MD. MAJAM ALI
R/O VILL. NO. 2 SALABILA
P.O. DAGGHAR
P.S. MANIKPUR
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN 78338
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M H TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI Page No.# 2/19 Date of hearing : 07.06.2022.
Date of judgment : 07.06.2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
(Suman Shyam, J)
Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State. Mr. M. I. Hussain, learned counsel is present on behalf of the informant/respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, Assam in connection with Sessions Case No.25(M)/2016 whereby, the sole appellant was convicted under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of his wife and also for destruction of evidence so as to screen the actual offender. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon had sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation for committing the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, had an affair with another woman whom he wanted to marry and Page No.# 3/19 therefore, with a view to fulfill his aforesaid desire the appellant had inflicted grievous injury on the body of his wife Sabia Khatun leading to her death. Thereafter, without informing the police, the appellant, with the help of his near and dear ones had hastily buried the dead body so as to remove the evidence of homicidal death of his wife.
4. On 10.10.2015, Md. Amir Ali had lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Manikpur Police Station reporting the incident. In the F.I.R. the name of the appellant has been mentioned as the accused person. Further the F.I.R. has also mentioned that the incident had taken place on 09.10.2015. On receipt of the aforesaid ejahar Manikpur P.S. Case No.151/2015 was registered under Sections 302/201 of the IPC and the matter was entrusted to Inspector Dilip Dutta for carrying out investigation. On completion of investigation the I.O. had submitted charge-sheet against the accused, based on which, the learned trial court had framed charge against the appellant under Sections 302/201 of the IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which, he had claimed innocence. As such, the matter went up for trial.
5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses including the doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body (PW-10), the Executive Magistrate who had held the inquest on the dead body (PW-11) and the I.O. (PW-12) who had conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet. The case of defence side was one of total denial. In his statement Page No.# 4/19 recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant/ accused had not only denied his involvement but had also taken the plea of alibi by stating that on the intervening night he was not at home but he had gone to the house of his uncle Mazid Mandal. On returning to his house he went out for fishing at around 2.00 a.m. and then he went to Nagari Bazar where his younger son had come to meet him at about 6.45 a.m. and had informed him about the death of his wife. Thereafter, he had gone home.
6. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge had found the appellant guilty of committing the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.
7. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2017 Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Since there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and therefore, the prosecution was bound to establish the charge brought against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence which they failed to do in this case. According to Mr. Sikdar, failure on the part of the prosecution to examine as witnesses, the inmates of the house of the accused including the daughter-in-law of the deceased who had first raised the hue and cry after noticing the condition of her mother-in-law (deceased), as well as the younger son of the deceased/accused, who had informed his father about the death of his mother, has left a wide gap in the prosecution story, the benefit of which must be given to the accused. It is also the submission of Mr. Sikdar that in a case of Page No.# 5/19 circumstantial evidence the prosecution was required to prove the motive behind the crime which they have failed to do in this case. In support of his above arguments Mr. Sikdar has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shatrughna Baban Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021)1 SCC 596 and Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021)5 SCC 624.
8. Responding to the above submission, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has argued that all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused/appellant has been firmly established in this case based on cogent circumstantial evidence. According to the learned Addl. P.P., the prosecution has not only succeeded in establishing that the incident took place inside the house of the accused where the appellant and the deceased were ordinarily residing as husband and wife but it has also been proved that the appellant was present in the house at the time of the occurrence. But the accused has failed to offer any plausible explanation as to how his wife had suffered such grievous injuries. Moreover, submits Ms. Jahan, the medical evidence clearly establishes the homicidal death of the deceased and it has also been brought on record through the prosecution witnesses that the accused was having an extra marital relation with another woman whom he wanted to marry. The learned Addl. P.P. has further argued that in his 313 statement the accused has made deliberate incorrect statements thereby indicating that he was trying to conceal the truth. Therefore, even if there are minor contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses the same would not have any material bearing in the outcome of this case.
Page No.# 6/19
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and have also carefully gone through the materials available on record. Since the impugned judgment of the learned trial court has been assailed primarily on the ground that the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in the eye of law due to want of evidence available on record, we deem it necessary to briefly refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses during trial.
10. As noted above, Md. Amir Ali is the informant in this case. He was examined by the prosecution as PW-1. This witness is also the nephew of the deceased Sabia Khatun. PW-1 has deposed that the appellant was the husband of the deceased i.e. his "pehi" (aunt) and he has been harassing his aunt since their marriage. On 09.10.2015 at about 5.30 a.m. he had received information from some co-villagers that his aunt has died. He went to the house of the accused/appellant situated at No.1 Salabila and found that many persons had gathered there before his arrival. He had seen blood oozing out from the nose and mouth of his aunt and her hands were lying in such a fashion as if those were broken. He had also seen blood in the chest of his aunt. As such, he suspects that his aunt had been murdered. PW-1 has further stated that he had made a suggestion to inform the police about the incident but without paying any heed to his suggestion, the accused had buried the dead body of his aunt in a hurry. PW-1 has further deposed that Ext-1 is the ejahar lodged by him and Ext-1(1) was his signature. The ejahar was written by Mostafa Ahmed, which was read over to him, wherein he had put his signature. After the ejahar was lodged, police came and exhumed the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. According to PW-1, there were lots of blood even in the graveyard. During cross-
Page No.# 7/19 examination the evidence of this witness has remained intact.
11. Md. Mazzel Haque was examined as PW-2. This witness has also deposed to the effect that on 09.10.2015, at about 5.30 a.m. while he was going to the market he came to know that wife of Badsha Mandal viz., Sabia had died. Then he went to the house of Badsha and saw that many persons had gathered there. On reaching there, he had seen Badsha Mandal driving people out of his house. When people came out of the house, he went inside and saw the dead body. He saw that blood was oozing out from the eyes of the deceased. PW-2 has stated that he had also seen bleeding on the left side of the back of the head and injury on the chest of the deceased. After that, he came out of the house. He had asked the people present there not to bury the dead body and to arrange for post-mortem examination and then he left for the house of Amir (PW-1). However, the family members of the accused had buried the dead body without following the usual procedure of giving proper information as regards the death of the person through the microphone installed in the mosque. When Amir Ali lodged an ejahar with the Police Station the police came and exhumed the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. In his cross- examination PW-2 has deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence he had found 50/60 persons present there and there were more women than man. He had reached the place of occurrence at about 5.30 a.m. and stayed there for 10 minutes. The evidence of PW-2 also could not be shaken by the defence side during his cross-examination.
12. Mst. Saleha Khatun was examined as PW-3. She is the sister-in-law of deceased Page No.# 8/19 Sabia Khatun. PW-3 has deposed that Sabia Khatun got married to accused Badsha Mandal. She came to know about the death of Sabia from Amir Ali who came to their house and informed about the occurrence. On reaching the house of the accused she had seen that the dead body of Sabia was lying on the bed and there was bleeding from the eyes, mouth and ears. She had also seen that the belly and neck of the deceased was swollen and her tongue was sticking out. The hands were also lying in a stretched condition. Some women including herself had washed the dead body of Sabia. While washing the dead body she had seen blood oozing out from the left side of the head and private parts of the victim. Having noticed such injuries she thought that someone had killed Sabia. She suspected that accused Badsha Mandal had killed Sabia on the bed. The dead body was buried in haste with the help of a few people. Her son Amir Ali lodged an ejahar. Police came and exhumed the dead body. This witness has also remained firm during her cross- examination.
13. PW-4, Mustafa Ahmed is an advocate by profession and is the scribe of the ejahar. In his deposition, he has confirmed that he had written the ejahar Ext-1 and the same was read over to the informant after which, he had put his signature therein. According to PW-4, at around 7.00 a.m. on 09.10.2015, he had heard that the wife of the accused had died. He had gone to the house of the accused but did not see the dead body as the same was buried between 12.30 p.m. and 1.00 p.m. The PW-4 has further deposed that some people had obstructed the burial of the body on account of the fact that some women, who had washed the body, had noticed injury marks in the dead body. Accordingly, it was suggested that police be informed Page No.# 9/19 but instead of informing the police, the dead body was buried in haste. The following day, he had written the ejahar as per the version of the informant. PW-4 has also stated that he was present when the dead body was exhumed and that he had seen injuries on many parts of the dead body.
14. PW-5, Manikjan Khatun has also deposed that she had noticed injury marks on the dead body and that she was aware of the fact that accused Badsha had an affair with another woman. PW-5 has also deposed that the accused had been torturing his wife since before and the incident took place since he wanted to marry another woman. During her cross-examination PW-5 has, however, admitted that she had heard about the affair of the accused with another woman from others but did not see anything herself.
15. Smt. Moriam Bewa was examined as PW-6. This witness has also deposed in similar lines by stating that on receiving the information about the death of the deceased having been killed by the accused, she went to the house of the accused and saw that blood was oozing out from the eyes of the dead body. She had also seen injuries on the back side of the head and back of the deceased. While washing the dead body as per the religious customs, she had also noticed injuries on the body. According to PW-6, the accused/ appellant wanted to marry another woman from Bashbari and hence he had killed his wife. It appears from her testimony that the deceased was her niece. In her cross-examination PW-6 has stated that Maleka, Fulu, Hamed's wife Saira Khatun, Sale were amongst the women who were there with her at the time of washing the dead body.
Page No.# 10/19
16. PW-7, Saira Khatun has corroborated the version of PW-6 and has deposed that when the wearing apparels of the dead body was removed for the purpose of washing the same, she had seen blood oozing out from the eyes, mouth and genitals of the deceased. She had also seen injuries on the back side of the head and the back of the deceased. This witness had also stated that she had heard about the affair that the accused was having with another woman and that is why he had killed the deceased.
17. Md. Abbas Ali is another person from the locality and he was examined as PW-
8. This witness has testified that on the date of the incident, at around 8.00 a.m. he had heard from some people that Badsha Mandal had killed his wife. Then he went to the house of Badsha and on reaching there, saw that blood was oozing out from the eyes, mouth and nose of the deceased. He had also seen that the neck of the deceased was swollen. After having seen the dead body he returned home. Later police exhumed the dead body and he had seen blood even in the grave. He suspects that someone had killed the deceased. This witness has further deposed that he had heard that there was quarrel between the accused and his wife over the issue of former's affair with another woman.
18. Md. Usman Gani is an important witness in this case. He had noticed the abnormal demeanour of the accused in the morning of the occurrence around the time when the occurrence had reportedly taken place. This witness was examined by the prosecution as PW-9. According to PW-9, on the date of occurrence, at around 5.50 a.m. he went to Nagarik Bazar situated at No.1 Salabila so as to have a cup of Page No.# 11/19 tea. At that time accused/appellant Badsha Mandal was sitting there. He (Badsha) had three cups of tea and thereafter, went to the hardware shop and smoked three beedis. Thereafter, Badsha again returned to the tea stall and took another two cups of tea. The accused was seen moving around here and there in a state of restlessness. After a while his youngest son came to the shop and informed that his mother had died. On hearing that, the accused scolded his son by saying that his mother had not died as he had come to the market from his house just a little back. Thereafter, Badsha Mandal went to his house. PW-9 had further deposed that he also followed Badsha to his house. As he entered the house, Badsha had switched off the electric light of his house. He had seen bloodstained clothes lying on the floor. When he tried to examine the blood stained clothes, the accused, under the pretence of weeping out of grief, laid himself on the clothes so as to prevent PW-9 from examining the same. He had seen injury marks on the neck below the head of the dead body of the deceased. Having noticed blood oozing out from the nose, mouth and eyes of the dead body he came out of the house and left the place. On 11.10.2015 police had exhumed the dead body and held inquest on it. PW-9 has further stated that he had seen blood in the grave and the face of the deceased was swollen. In his cross- examination PW-9 has admitted that the police had not recorded his statement nor did he say the entire facts to the police which he had stated in his evidence in the Court. This witness has denied any enmity between the accused and himself. This witness has also denied the suggestion made by the defence side to the effect that he had deposed falsely before the court.
19. Dr. Gopal Ch. Ray was the Senior Medical & Health Officer on duty at the Page No.# 12/19 Bongaigaon Civil Hospital on 11.10.2015 when the dead body of the deceased was brought there for conducting post-mortem examination. The doctor was examined as PW-10. He has proved the post-mortem report Ext-3 by identifying his signature. According to PW-10, the death of the deceased was caused due to intra cranial haemorrhage and damage of cerebral area due to head injury and was ante- mortem in nature. PW-10 has also deposed before the court by bringing on record the nature of injuries reflected in the post-mortem report which includes laceration - 1" x ¼" x full thickness of scalp with haematoma, behind the right ear over right parietal bone and also brown coloured bruise over right hand (arm) - 2" x 1 ½" , right thigh - 2" x 1 ½" and left thigh - 1 ½" x 1 ½". During his cross-examination the PW-10 has clarified that owing to oversight the time of post-mortem examination conducted on 12.10.2015 was mentioned as 9.30 p.m. instead of 9.30 a.m. PW-10 has admitted that the head injury sustained by the deceased may be caused due to falling on hard substance with great force.
20. PW-11, Sri Gokul Ch. Brahma was the Executive Magistrate -cum- Election Officer, Bijni who had conducted inquest over the dead body of Sabia Khatun on 11.10.2015. PW-11 has proved the inquest report Ext-2 by identifying his signature therein as Ext-2(3). According to PW-11, there was one bruise mark in the upper legs just below the hips and thighs and blood was oozing out from the thigh.
21. PW-12, Sri Dilip Dutta was the Investigating Officer (IO) in this case. This witness has deposed that on 10.10.2015 while he was on duty as the Officer-in-Charge of Manikpur Police Station, informant Amir Ali had lodged a written ejahar at around Page No.# 13/19 9.00 p.m. alleging that his paternal aunt has been found dead on a bed at 5.30 a.m. of 09.10.10.2015. The I.O. has confirmed that Ext-1 is the ejahar lodged by the PW-1. PW-2 has further deposed that on receipt of the ejahar he had registered a case and took charge of the investigation. In course of investigation, he had visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and had drawn sketch map of the place of occurrence. He had also made a request to the SDO (Civil), Bijni to get the dead body exhumed and accordingly the body was exhumed on 11.10.2015 in presence of Executive Magistrate Sri G. C. Brahma and inquest on the dead body was also held. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. PW-12 has stated that he had seen injuries on the chest and on the back of the deceased. During his cross-examination the I.O. has replied that the ejahar had been lodged one day after the incident but there is no mention in the ejahar about the reason for delay. The dead body was exhumed on 11.10.2015 at about 11.00/12.00 a.m. (sic). The dead body was found covered in a piece of white cloth and there were black marks on some portion of that cloth, but he did not seize the piece of cloth nor was the same sent for FSL examination. During his cross-examination the I.O. has also brought on record the contradictions/improvements in the testimonies of PWs-2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 by making the following statements.
"PW-2 Mozzel Hoque did not state to me that he had seen injury on the head of the deceased; that Badsha Mandal had driven out the public from his house and that on being asked by uncle Abdul Mazid, accused person's son Abdul Kasem replied that he had heard commotion at night.
PW-3 Saleha Khatun did not state to me that she had seen blood on the chest of deceased, but she stated to me that she had seen blood all over her Page No.# 14/19 body.
PW-6 Marium Bewa did not state to me that the accused had forbidden Sabia Khatun from visiting their house.
PW-7 Saira Khatun did not state to me that she had seen injuries on the ear, back, genitals and backside of the head of the deceased.
PW-8 Abbas Ali did not state to me that when police had exhumed the dead body, he had seen blood (in the grave); that three days prior to the incident, there had been a quarrel between the accused and his wife over the issue of the former's affair with another woman and that the accused had assaulted his wife. It is not a fact that I submitted the charge sheet without investigating into the matter properly. It is not a fact that the statement that the accused, with the aid of some of his inmates, forcibly buried the dead body, is false. It is not a fact that the accused buried the dead body by informing all concerned."
22. From a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record it clearly appears that the death of the deceased came to light at around 5.30 a.m. on 09.10.2015. From the testimony of PW-9 it has also come out that around that time, the accused was seen at the Nagarik Bazar frenetically sipping cups of tea, one after another and smoking beedis. It was at that time the youngest son of the accused came to the Bazar and informed him about the death of her mother. It appears from the evidence of PW-9 that instead of expressing any surprise on receipt of such information the accused had started scolding his son with a view to deny the occurrence and thereafter, he left for home. Even on reaching home the accused had switched off the electric lights which was obviously with the intent of reducing the visibility inside the room. The PW-9 had not only seen injury marks on the dead body of the victim Page No.# 15/19 but had also deposed about blood stained clothes lying on the floor. It further appears from the testimony of PW-9 that he was the first person outside the family of the deceased who had reached the place of occurrence and had seen the body of the victim.
23. From the statements made by PW-9 it transpires that the I.O. had not recorded the statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is evident that PW-9 had deposed for the first time about certain facts before the Court. Ordinarily, the testimony of witnesses who depose before the Court stating facts for the first time is not taken on face value. However, in the instant case, we find that there is no cross- examination of the PW-9 on the vital statements made by him regarding the conduct of the accused on that morning and what he had seen after reaching the house of the accused in the morning of 09.10.2015. Moreover, the fact that the accused was at the Nagarik Bazar at around 5.50 a.m. on the date of the incident and that his youngest son had came there to inform him about the death of his mother is consistent even with the explanation furnished by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the same, in our opinion, lends sufficient credence to the testimony of PW-9. The testimony of PW-9 is also free from any contradiction. We are, therefore, inclined to believe that the PW-9 was speaking the truth before the court.
24. In so far as the homicidal death of the victim is concerned, a perusal of the post-mortem report as well as the testimony of PW-10 leaves no manner of doubt that the deceased had suffered a homicidal death. The medical evidence finds due corroboration from the ocular evidence.
Page No.# 16/19
25. The informant PW-1 has categorically deposed that there was blood oozing out from the eyes, mouth and nose of the deceased and that he had also seen other injury marks on the dead body. The aforesaid version of the PW-1 not only finds adequate support from the post-mortem report but is also duly corroborated by all other witnesses including PWs-2, 8 and 9 who appear to be independent witnesses.
26. There is also reliable evidence available on record which goes to show that by defying the suggestions coming from persons present there to inform the police, the accused had hurriedly buried the dead body with the help of his family members. If there were injury marks in the body and blood was oozing out from nose, eyes and mouth besides there being other injury marks on other parts of the body of the deceased, it is difficult to believe that unless the accused had something to conceal, he would resist the suggestion made by the villagers to inform the police. Such conduct of the accused undoubtedly raises a grave suspicion about his guilty mind and the same, viewed in the light of the other facts and circumstances of the case brought on record through the prosecution witnesses, clearly points towards the guilt of the accused.
27. We also find from a close scrutiny of the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he had taken the plea of alibi by stating that on the preceding night, he had gone to the house of his uncle Mazed Mandal and thereafter, he went to Nagarik Bazar for selling fish. Law is firmly settled that the burden of proving the plea of alibi is clearly on the defence side. However, in the present case, the accused had not made any effort to establish the plea of alibi.
Page No.# 17/19
28. The evidence on record goes to show that the accused was living with his deceased wife along with four children and there was no outsider present in the house on the day of the occurrence. Since the testimony of PW-9 is found to be consistent with the evidence of other witnesses who had deposed that the dead body was seen inside the house of the accused with injury marks in the body, it was incumbent upon the accused to offer explanation as to the circumstances under which the victim had suffered such bodily injuries leading to her death. Such explanation ought to have been offered by the accused in discharge of his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. However, as noticed above, in the present case the accused has not only failed to offer any plausible explanation but has also taken a stand which is not only wavering in nature but is also mutually contradictory thereby, projecting a picture that the accused was trying to conceal the truth.
29. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution through PWs-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 corroborates each other's version and we do not find any material contradictions in their evidence which could be seen to have gone into the root of the matter. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, in our opinion, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it was none other than the accused/appellant who had caused bodily injury to his wife inside the house in the wee hours of 09.10.2015. After the incident, he went out of the house and came to Nagarik Bazar when he was seen by the PW-9 in a restless condition. When the fact regarding the death of his wife was brought to his notice by his youngest son, the accused had rushed back home and with the intention of concealing his misdeeds, he had got the body buried hurriedly without informing the police. Later on, when the dead body was exhumed Page No.# 18/19 and sent for post-mortem it was established that the deceased had died a homicidal death.
30. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the plea that delay in lodging the ejahar in this case raises a suspicion about the actual circumstances under which the incident had happened. Therefore, the accused be granted acquittal on benefit of doubt. We are afraid, such submission of Mr. Sikdar does not commend for acceptance by this Court. Firstly, the learned trial court has dealt with this issue. Upon appreciation of evidence available on record the learned trial court was of the view that there were reasons for delay in lodging the ejehar. Nothing has been urged before us to demonstrate that the view of the trial court was erroneous on the facts and circumstances of the case. Secondly, there is convincing evidence available on record to show that the deceased had died a homicidal death inside the house of the accused/appellant and there was also a clear attempt on the part of the accused not only to suppress the incident but also to destroy the evidence by removing the dead body without informing the police. Therefore, delay of one day in lodging the ejahar, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered view, would not cast any serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Rather, we find that the prosecution story is consistent with the evidence brought on record, which is sufficient to prove the murder charge brought against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
31. For the reasons indicated herein above, we are of the view that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sikdar would be of no assistance to his client in the facts and Page No.# 19/19 circumstances of the case. We accordingly, hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused/appellant stand affirmed.
Registry to send back the LCR.
JUDGE JUDGE T U Choudhury/Sr.PS Comparing Assistant