Md. Siddique Ali Sardar (In Jail) vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 September, 2010

[Cites 18, Cited by 5]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Md. Siddique Ali Sardar (In Jail) vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 September, 2010

Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee

Form No. J(1)
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 Appellate / Revisional /Criminal Jurisdiction
Present :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE
                          And
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUNATH RAY

                   CRA NO. 64 OF 2004

                   Md. Siddique Ali Sardar       (In Jail)   .... Appellant

                          Vs

                 The State of West Bengal. .... Respondent/ Opposite Party

For the Appellant/        :       Mrs Ratna Ghosh
Petitioner

For the Respondent / :            Mr. R. K. Ghosal
Opposite Party                    Mrs   Minati Gomes

Judgment on :      06.09.2010

RAGHUNATH RAY, J. :

Introduction This is a heart rendering tale of a teenaged young girl being enamoured with her private tutor's amorous advances entered into a marital relationship which culminated in young wife's horrendous decapitation by her ruthless husband. This horrifying cannibalistic action of a human being of a civilized society reminds us of the primitive savages of pre-historic age.

The First Information Report

2. The FIR initially lodged by Md. Imam Ali Molla, PW1, the wretched father of Fatema Bibi, aged 18 years since deceased before the Officer - in - charge 1 Bhangore PS was forwarded to the Officer - in - charge, Sonarpur G.R.P.S. on the question of jurisdiction for starting a case u/s 302/201 IPC vide Bhangore PS G.D. Entry No. 611 dt. 14.06.1998. It reveals that on 12.05.1998 in the afternoon his son-in-law Md. Siddique Ali, the appellant, accompanied by his Bonai (sister's husband) Hannan Molla had been to his house and took Fatema, the unfortunate victim with them on the plea of visiting the houses of their relatives. On his return on the following day i.e. on 13.06.1998 when the informant did not find his daughter with his son-in-law, he made queries. The appellant responded by saying that she had been left in his relative's house. A thorough search for the victim was found abortive and the victim remained untraceable. On persistent interrogation truth came to light and it was disclosed inter alia that his daughter was killed besides the railway track, near Taldi Railway Station and her decapitated head was buried in a ditch by the side of the railway track. On receipt of the said FIR on 14.06.1998 at 9-45 hours Sonarpur G.R.P.S. Case No. 7/98 dated 14.06.1998 under section 302/201/34 IPC was started against the appellant and his relation Hannan Molla. The Sonarpur G.R.P.S. U.D. Case No. 34/98 dated 13.061998 was tagged with the said Sonarpur G.R.P.S. Case and was endorsed to S.I. S. K. Pramanik for investigation.

Investigation

3. In course of investigation the I.O. visited the P.O. at Alakulia village and recorded the statement of Imam Ali Molla and other witnesses under section 161 Cr. P.C. The severed head of the victim together with the incriminating chopper 2 was recovered from a ditch situated to the east of Taldi railway station in between K.M. post No. 40/3 & 40/4 in the presence of the police and villagers as per showing of the appellant. The Inquest of the said head and trunk was also held by the police officers separately and the same were sent subsequently for PM Examination. The trunk was lying in between the two railway tracks in unclothed condition and the said headless dead body of the victim was also recovered as per information furnished by the appellant. The I.O. collected PM Examination Reports of both the skull and trunk of the victim. On completion of investigation the charge-sheet No. 11/98 dated 30.11.98 u/s 302/201 IPC was initially submitted by the I.O. against the appellant. By filing a supplementary charge- sheet No. 1/1999 dt. 06.01.1999, the name of Hannan Molla, was incorporated therein in terms of order dated 02.12.1998 passed by the ld. Judicial Magistrate 4th Court, Sealdah in G.R. Case No. 207 (I) / 98. The said G.R. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 4th Court, Sealdah vide order dated 23.09.1999.

Heads of Charge

4. On consideration of relevant police papers coupled with other connected documents and circumstances on record, ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore framed charge u/s 302/34 and 201/34 IPC against both the appellants vide order dated 28.07.2000. Both of them were asked to answer the following charge;-

3 'First - That you Md. Siddique Sardar and Hannan Molla in furtherance of common intention on 12.06.98 some times in the afternoon by the side of Railway Track in between K.M. post No. 40/3 & 40/4 between Taldi & Canning Rly., Station did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Fatema Bibi, w/o. Md. Siddique Sardar and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions. Secondly - That you on the same day, time and place, in furtherance of common intention knowing that certain offence, to wit hidden the head of the deceased Fatema Bibi under water of a ditch wrapping with the wearing apparel of said Fatema Bibi punishable with imprisonment for life having been committed, did cause certain evidence of said offence to disappear, to wit murder by a sharp cutting weapons with an intention to detach the dead body with the intention of screening the offender Md. Siddique Sardar and Hannan Molla from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 201 read with 34 IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.' Trial

5. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and also relied upon several exhibits and material exhibits in order to prove its case. None was however, examined on behalf of the defence to substantiate its plea of innocence and false implication. Both the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C. and they 4 denied their involvement in commission of the offence for which they were charged. Both of them thus pleaded innocence. On consideration of entire ocular evidence coupled with medical testimony and other relevant surrounding circumstances on record the learned trial Judge came to a finding that Hannan Molla, co-accused was not guilty of the charge u/s 302/201/34 IPC and he was accordingly acquitted of the said charge. However, accused Md. Siddique Ali Sarkar, the appellant was found guilty of the charge u/s 302 IPC and he was convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/- in default whereof to suffer R.I. for further two years for committing an offence under section 302 IPC vide order dated 29.11.2003. It was further ordered that out of the aforesaid fine amount, if realised, 50% of the same shall be given to the mother of the victim Fatema Bibi towards compensation as per provision of section 357 (I) Cr. P.C. In the Appeal

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging legality / validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence impugned. In support of the appeal it is argued by Mrs Ratna Ghosh, ld. Counsel for appellant, that the ld. Trial Judge is wrong in placing reliance on the evidence of witnesses on extra-judicial confession of the appellant since it was obtained by threat and wrongful confinement, and as such the same was inadmissible in law being hit by section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act (in short Evidence Act). Her further argument is that the ld. Trial Court ought not have relied upon interested 5 witnesses keeping in view that extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and is hardly of any consequence. According to Mrs. Ghosh the evidence of the doctor is also not clinching on the point of identity of the unknown female's trunk with one arm missing since there is nothing on record to identify the trunk and the head on which the PM Examination was held. More so, whenever the so-called skull and headless trunk of the victim were not identified by PW1, the father of the victim. According to her, examination of all interested witnesses instead of independent co-villagers is very much fatal for the prosecution case. It is further argued by her that there was none to identify head and trunk when PM Examination was separately conducted by the Medical Officer. She, further submits that it is not conclusively proved that head and trunk are of the same person in the absence of proper identification by a competent person in this regard. She has also assailed the investigation conducted in this case on the ground that there was no blood test of recovered trunk and skull and no effective steps were taken for holding DNA test of recovered skull and trunk seized by the police. That apart, whenever co-accused of this case has been acquitted by the learned Court below, the present appellant cannot be convicted on the self-same materials which were made available to the ld. Trial Court.

Per Contra

7. In course of her argument Ms. Gomes supports the findings arrived at by the ld. Trial Judge as per impugned judgment and order of conviction. It is submitted by her that pursuant to love affairs between appellant and Fatema since 6 deceased, their marriage was registered against the will of her parents. However, at the intervention of co-villagers the informant had to concede to the appellant's dowry demand to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- in cash, furniture, gold bungle, ear rings, necklace and another ring as wedding gifts. They were thus forced to accept the marriage in question. Against such backdrop of circumstances the relationship between the appellant and his in-laws became strained. It is, therefore, submitted by Mrs. Gomes that whenever, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that Siddique, the appellant took the victim with him from his in-law's house, and thereafter, she was found missing and further her headless trunk and skull were recovered as per showing of the appellant, onus lies upon the husband to explain the intervening circumstances leading to the death of Fatema. He has, however, failed to offer any explanation during his examination u/s 313 Cr. P.C. Even in the form of defence suggestion no explanation was offered in this regard. A court of law is, therefore, to draw an adverse inference against him. There is also no tangible evidence on record to indicate that the death of the victim was an accident even though a faint suggestion was offered to one of the witnesses hinting an accident since there was recovery of the trunk near the railway track. But according to Mrs Gomes, in the case of an accident there would be no incised wounds as are available in the PM Examination report of the trunk in the present case. Learned Counsel for the State has further elaborated such argument by pointing out that the last seen together theory is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and since the victim was seen together with the appellant for the 7 last time, he had the special knowledge about her whereabouts and burden lies upon him to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the victim. Mrs Gomes, further, argues that since there is no eye-witness and the entire case hinges upon circumstantial evidence, the court is to give due weight to attending circumstances and taking all such circumstances together into account it is to be considered whether such circumstances cumulatively form an unbreakable chain pointing to the guilt of the accused unerringly. According to her, the conduct of siddique after commission of crime is also inexplicable since nothing was reported to the police station by him when the victim was found missing. That apart, if the victim was actually run over by a train, the matter could have been brought by him to the notice of the GRPS, Sonarpur. It is, therefore, argued by her that, even if for argument's sake extra-judicial confession which was allegedly taken on pressure is excluded from court's consideration there are sufficiently strong and cogent circumstances forming a complete chain without any missing link. It is, therefore, forcefully submitted by her that the judgement and order of conviction under appeal should be maintained.

Profile

8. It would be appropriate to set out the fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution in their respective perspective to have a profitable discussion. I. Witnesses before whom extra-judicial confession was made They are (i) PWI Md. Iman Ali Molla, the FIR maker, (ii) PW4 Golam Yazdani Molla, (iii) Safique Ali Molla, PW 8, and (iv) PW9 Masiar Rahaman, all three are co- 8 villagers and cultivator by profession (v) PW 10 Arifan Bibi, the mother of the victim and (vi) Nannu Hussain, PW11, the nephew of the informant. Significantly, both the defacto complainant and the appellant belong to the same village Alakuilea.

II. Witnesses to the recovery of severed head wrapped with victim's wearing apparels and incriminating weapons etc. PW 2 - Md. Innat Ali Molla, a co-villager and a vegetable vendor at Sonarpur Hat. PW 3 - Safique Ali Molla, the scribe is another recovery as also seizure witness. III. The Medical Evidence covers PW3, Dr. Tapas Kr. Ghosh, Reader in the department of Forensic and Estate Medicine of N.R.S. Medical College & Hospital Kolkata.

IV. Police Witnesses are ;-

i) Harikrishna Gorain, PW5 and (ii) Manoranjan Bag, PW6, two Police Constables carried the severed head and decapitated body of the victim respectively to the morgue of N.R.S. Hospital for their Post Mortem Examination.

iii) Sushil Kumar Rakshit, PW 12, ASI of police held Inquest of headless dead body of one unknown woman and prepared the said Inquest Report (Exhibit 5).

iv) Sanat Kumar Mondal, PW13, the then OIC of Sonarpur G.P.R.S. received the written complaint and drew formal FIR.

v) Pradip Kumar Ray, PW 14, the then OIC Bhangar P.S. forwarded the written complaint to OIC G.R.P.S. Sonarpur.

9

vi) Sisir Kumar Pramanik PW 15, I.O. conducted the Inquest of the head of the victim. He also recorded the statement of accused (Exhibit 8) leading to recovery of incriminating articles and materials.

V. A witness to the Inquest of trunk.

vi) Jitendranath Monal, PW7, is a PWD staff of Sonarpur Railway Station and an independent witness to the Inquest of headless dead body. The special feature of this case is that two Inquest Reports - one for headless body (Exhibit 5) and another for severed head (Exhibit 3) were prepared by Sushil Kumar Rakshit A.S.I. PW 12 and Sisir Kumar Pramanik, I.O. PW 15 respectively.

Discussion I. Witnesses before whom extra-judicial confession was made.

9. Md. Imam Ali Molla, PWI, the informant deposes that the marriage of his daughter Fatema, the victim with the accused Siddique Sardar, was registered and such registration was preceded by their love affairs. The appellant was his daughter's home tutor and after marriage she used to stay in her parental house. His further evidence is that the appellant brought his daughter from his house on 12/6/98 at about 3-30 PM on the plea that they would visit a relative's house. On the following day when he returned to their house at about 2 PM, on query he stated that his daughter stayed in his relative's house. But even after a thorough search she could not be found in the relative's house or anywhere in the locality. It transpires from his testimony that when Siddique was brought to his house by the villagers pressure was put to him and he replied that they brought his daughter to a field at a short distance from Taldi Railway Station and they 10 murdered his daughter. Pursuant to such extra-judicial confession before the villagers including PWI, a written complaint which was scribed by Safiqe Ali Molla, PW 8 was lodged by him.

10. It is elicited from his cross-examination that pressure was exercised by his relatives and villagers to ascertain the whereabouts of his daughter Fatema. His evidence remains unshaken during cross-examination. There is nothing on record even in the form of defence suggestion that he had enmity with the appellant. Although it was feebly suggested to the deponent and some other witnesses that there was no talk of marriage between his daughter and Md. Ali, the appellant himself, however, admitted his marriage with the victim during his examination under section 313 Cr. P.C. That apart, there are corroborative evidence on record to establish the factum of marriage.

11. Another witness before whom the appellant confessed his guilt is Golam Ali Molla PW4, a co-villager. His evidence is that the appellant and the victim fell in love with each other and subsequently they were married. He corroborates PWI by deposing that Siddique brought Fatema from the house of Iman Ali Molla, PWI at about 11 AM about two years ago. On his return when PWI asked his son-in- law about his daughter's whereabouts, initially he replied that she was kept in the house of relatives. On further enquiry his version was found to be a hoax. A village Salish was convened and at last the appellant divulged that Fatema was no more in this world and she was murdered. Her dead body was thrown in a nearby Taldi Railway Station. The police was, thereafter, called to avoid public disturbance. Nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination, to show that 11 this disinterested co-villager has deposed falsely. We, therefore, do not find any reason rather convincing to disbelieve this witness. Moreso, whenever he has very successfully stood the test of cross-examination and nothing is forthcoming to affect credibility of this independent co-villager.

12. PW9 - Masiar Rahaman, another co-villager also testifies that it was reported to him by Iman Ali Molla, PWI that his son-in-law Siddique took his daughter for a tour but on his return the victim was not found with him. It is available from his testimony that when Siddique was asked about her whereabouts, it is disclosed by him that he murdered Fatema at a nearby place of Taldi Railway Station.

It is extracted from his cross-examination that the police was subsequently informed and after his arrest he told the police that he would show the place where he murdered Fatema. His evidence also remains unimpeachable in cross- examination. We do not find any earthly reason to disbelieve this disinterested co-villager having no background of enmity with the appellant.

13. PW10 - Arifan Bibi, the mother of the victim deposes that the appellant took her daughter from their house on the plea of going on a tour. When her son-in- law returned alone, he was asked about Fatema's whereabouts. But without explaining such a situation satisfactorily her son-in-law was about to assault her. It transpires from her evidence that being pressurised by the villagers Siddique confessed that he murdered Fatema at Taldi. She was also subjected to rigorous cross-examination but her consistent testimony could not be demolished. It was simply suggested to her that she was deposing falsely at the 12 instance of her husband. Needless to say, she has emphatically denied such suggestion. Her evidence taken as a whole inspires confidence.

14. PW11 - Nannu Hossain is also another witness before whom the appellant made confessional statement. His testimony tends to show that on 13.06.1998 Iman Ali Molla, PWI told him that on 12.06.1998 their daughter was brought by the appellant from their house on the plea of taking her to the houses of relatives. However, the appellant returned on the following day alone. When the deponent along with some villagers had been to the house of Siddique and interrogated him, he told that Fatema was left in the house of Jamai of Hannan Molla. The deponent visited the said house in his motor cycle to verify such statement. But Fatema remained untraceable. On further interrogation he divulged that he murdered Fatema Bibi in a place situated in between Taldi and Canning Station. He also disclosed that the headless body was kept on the railway land while her severed head was kept concealed in a nearby ditch. His further confessional statement was that her head was wrapped by her Salwar and panties and a chopper was also kept hidden in a ditch.

15. His testimony stood the test of cross-examination very successfully. Nothing has been extracted from his cross - examination to indicate that he deposed falsely. It was simply suggested to him that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police. Suggestion, if plausible, is acceptable. But it is beyond our comprehension as to why this independent co-villager would depose falsely against Siddique, another co-villager at the instance of the police. Moreso, whenever there is nothing on record even in form of defence suggestion to 13 indicate that the deponent had any outstanding grudge or ill-feeling against the appellant, another co-villager. There is also nothing within the four corners of the testimony to indicate that there existed any village rivalry amongst the villagers for some reason or other. We, therefore, feel inclined to put implicit trust on the testimony, of this deponent. His testimony, in our considered view, is creditworthy.

16. Witnesses to the Recovery of severed head and headless body of the victim together with its wearing apparels and incriminating chopper. PW2 - Innat Ali Molla, a co-villager deposes that Fatema Bibi was murdered at a vacant place near Taldi Rly. Station. His evidence is that he alongwith Safique PW 8. Siddique the appellant and Nannu Hoosain, PW 11 went to the place of occurrence accompanied by the police personnel and the "head of the dead body of Fatema was recovered by Sidiqque Sardar in the presence of the Police Personnel from the nearby Jhill." He forcefully asserts that the said 'cut head' was of the deceased Fatema Bibi. It is also available from his testimony that the head of the Fatema Bibi was covered by her Salowar Kamiz of reddish colour. Thereafter, the said 'cut head' along with Siddique was brought to Sonarpur GRPS. After preparation of the Seizure list he put his signature (Exhibit 2/3) as a seizure witness. He was also a witness to the Inquest and he identified his signature (Exhibit 3/3) thereupon. He also identified the seized Salowar (Material Exihibit I) on its production before the learned Trial Court. It transpires from his cross-examination that he is a vegetable vendor at Sonarpur Hat although he is a resident of Alakuilea village. His house is at the distance of 2/3 14 rashsis from that of Imman Ali Molla (PW1). It is elicited from his cross- examination that accused Siddique Sardar and the police, both brought out the 'cut head' of the deceased from the water. His testimony remains unshattered during cross-examination. Nothing emanates therefrom to challenge trustworthiness of this independent co-villager. Therefore, much reliance can be placed upon his cogent and convincing testimony.

17. Md. Safique Ali Molla, PW8 - Corroborates PW2 by deposing to the effect that the police recovered the 'cut head' as well as the headless dead body of Fatema from the place where it was kept concealed. His categorical evidence is that "Siddique lifted the cut head of Fatema from the ditch in the presence of police which was covered by a Salowar Kamiz in Khayeri Colour and Green Panties alongwith a chopper measuring about 15" / 16" length."

He also signed the Inquest Report prepared over the severed head of Fatema in his presence. The signature of the deponent was marked as Exhibit 3/2. He further signed the seizure list prepared in respect of chopper with a wooden handle and a slightly torn salowar and panties of green colour. His signature was marked as Exhibit 2/2. He also identified the said chopper, (Material Exhibit I), salowar (Material Exhibit II) and green panties (Material Exhibit III) produced before the learned trial court. He has been cross-examined at length but nothing has been extracted from his cross-examination to show that he has not divulged the truth. His evidence, in our considered, view is creditworthy and implicit trust can be placed upon this wholly reliable witness whose testimony stands corroborated by other two recovery witnesses, PW 2 & 11.

18. Nannu Hossain PW11 - His evidence is that the Police of Sonarpur GPRS had been to a ditch near Taldi Rly Station to recover the head of Fatema Bibi and also the incriminating Chopper. It is his further evidence that the accused lifted the said severed head and the chopper from the ditch. The seizure list which was prepared in connection with the said recovery of salowar, panties and incriminating weapon of offence was signed by him and the signature of the deponent was marked as Exhibit 2/3. He was also a witness to the Inquest of hacked head and his signature on the said inquest report was also marked as Exhibit 3/3. He also identified the chopper (Material Exhibit II) as also the Panties of the victim (Material Exhibit III). As already indicated earlier in paragraph 14, his testimony remains unshaken during cross-examination. In the absence of any specific plea of enmity between the deponent and the accused we do not find any earthly reason rather convincing to discard such a consistent and cogent testimony which stands corroborated by the evidence of other recovery witnesses.

III. Medical Evidence

19. Dr. Tapas Kr. Ghosh (PW3), testifies that on 15.06.1998 he conducted PM examination over the skull of Fatema Bibi, aged 18 years identified by Constable No. 728 Harikrishna Gorain PW5 in connection with Sonarpur GRPS U/D case No. 34A/ 98 dt. 13.06.1998 and Sonarpur GRPS case No. 7/98 dt. 14.06.1998 u/s 302/201/34 IPC.

On examination he found the following injuries :-

(1) One incised wound 2" x 1/2" x mussels and vessels left side of neck 1" below left ankle of mondible and 1/2" to the left of midline with a lowering 1 ½ "

outwards on sisection and pressing rack it has seen to pass through skin sublutanass tissue, mussles, fellels and nurve and ends in mussle severing left external cavotid artery and jugular vain.

(2) One incised wound 3" x 1/2" x Muscle left side of neck starte 1/2" below left ankle of mondible and merges with injury No. 1.

(3) Extra vasction 3" x 2" over left parital and temporal bone in sculp. (4) One post mortem crush laceration 4 ½" x 4" x whole thickness of lower part of neck 4 ½" below chin involving of the structures at the corresponding part at the level of lower part of 4 cervical vertibral.

20. PW 3 has opined that 'death was due to the effect of injuries as stated with the evidence of P.M. crushing crematic separation of the head - when aligned to the beheaded body sent under Sonarpur GRPS U/D case No. 34 dt 13.04.1998 and PM number 588 anatomically and snuggerly and in all other aspects, appears to belong to same individual.' Accordingly it was opined by the doctor that 'Death was due to the effect of injuries as stated ante -mortem and homicidal in nature.' He has proved the PM report written and signed by him. His opinion was concurred by the Head of the Department, Prof. R. Basu with the comment that the PM was done under his direction, supervision and guidance .

21. The Doctor has further opined that "the injuries noted in the PM report are not inconsistent with the injuries that might have been produced by light sharp cutting weapons due to drawing over the neck."

22. PW3 further testifies that on the same day at 3-30PM he also conducted the PM examination over the headless trunk of an unknown female since known as Fatema Bibi, 18 years, Muslim Female being identified by Constable No. 581 Manoranjan Bag. PW 6 No ante -mortem injury detected. Following PM injuries were there :-

(1) PM lacerated would 20" x 4" x whole thickness of right leg all the structures at the corresponding part resulting traumatic separation. (2) PM lacerated injury 10"x 4" x bone medial aspect of left foot resulting structure of bones and left foot.

(3) PM lacerated injury 4 ½" x 4" x whole thickness of right axilla resulting traumatic separation of right superial extremity with right superior extremity missing.

(4) One P.M. crush lacerated wound 4 ½" X 4" x whole thickness lower part of the neck with traumatic separation at the level of 5th & 6th survical of the structure at the corresponding part.

23. The doctor was of the opinion that the instant PM report was prepared in respect of a beheaded female body, beheading being done, Post Mortem by crushing traumatic separation. In the absence of any ante-mortem injury or pathology on the available portion of body parts as examined, he could not give any definite opinion as to the cause of death in this report. He has proved the report signed by him and concurred by the HOD, Prof. R. Basu, with the comments that the P.M. was held under his direction, supervision and guidance. The doctor has been cross-examined at length. It transpires from cross- 18 examination that identification of a body can be done without head. It is, further, elicited from his cross-examination that separation of a dead body occurred due to high pressure or with impact of a very heavy object resulting crush laceration which may result in traumatic separation.

In the concluding sentence of cross-examination he has stated that crush laceration as mentioned in both the reports 'may be due to run- over by rail.'

24. A close analysis of Medical Evidence reveals that the headless trunk and the severed head belonged to the same female. As per doctor's opinion, the hacked head under PM examination report No. 1589 and beheaded body under PM Examination Report No. 1588 appears to belong to the same individual. That apart, at the time of recovery of the severed head, it was found that the same was wrapped in Salowar and Panties of the victim. Such being the factual position, there is no scope to raise any controversy over the issue of identification of the victim. Rather, ocular evidence and attending circumstances as evaluated hereinbefore is in absolute conformity with the medical evidence adduced by PW3. Two incised wounds of larger size and dimension as indicated in P.M. Report No. 1589 are sufficient to overrule the theory of rail accident. Furthermore, there is no defence suggestion indicating the victim's death due to railway accident to the witnesses. There does not also exist any iota of evidence to boister the appellant's case that victim's death was due to railway accident. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion follows that both the severed head and headless trunk belonged to the same individual i.e. Fatema Bibi alone and none else. It is established from cogent and consistent circumstances that her death 19 was caused in a very gruesome and ruthless manner through a very cruel process of beheading her with a sharp cutting weapon like chopper.

For foregoing reasons, Mrs. Ghosh's argument challenging identity of severed head and trunk so recovered is not a meritorious one and his further contention that the death of the victim was caused due to railway accident is also devoid of any merit.

IV. The Police Witnesses

25. PW5 - Harikrishna Gorain, a constable attached to Sonarpur GRPS at the material point of time, deposes that he carried one 'cut head' to N.R.S. Hospital Morgue. He has proved the signatures appearing on the dead body challan as also on its reverse side. (Exhibit 4/1 and 4/2 respectively). He also produced the said 'cut head' before the doctor of N.R.S. Hospital Morgue. Similarly, another constable Monoranjan Bag, PW 6 also testifies that while he was posted at Sonarpur G.R.P.S as a constable he carried one headless body to the morgue of N.R.S. Hospital and produced the same before the doctor for its PM examination as per order of the then OC. It transpires from his cross-examination that the dead body was in naked condition. It is admitted by him that he had no prior acquaintance with the victim when she was alive. He cannot also say the name of the person whose dead body he carried since nobody told him the name of the deceased. Such revelation by the deponent in his cross-examination is of no consequence for the simple reason that there are documentary proofs to establish the identity of the decapitated body. However, evidence of both PWs 5 and 6 20 taken together leaves no room for doubting the genuineness of the prosecution case.

26. Sushil Kr Rakhit (PW12) as ASI of police attached to the Sonarpur G.R.P.S at the relevant point of time, says that he held the Inquest over a headless dead body of an unknown female. He has proved the Inquest Report which was prepared at the spot in the presence of witnesses. The said report was marked as Exhibit 5.

27. Sanat Kr. Mondal, PW 13, the then OC Sonarpur P.S. gives out that he received the written complaint from Imman Ali Molla. He has proved his endorsement together with initial (Exhibit1/1) appearing on the margin of the said written complaint (Exhibit I).

28. PW 14, Pradip Kr. Roy, who was posted as OC Bhangar PS at the material point of time deposes that the written complaint (Exhibit I) was forwarded to the OIC Sonarpur G.R.P.S. as the alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the said PS. He has proved the relevant endorsement together with his signature (Exhibit 1/3). It is elicited from his cross-examination that the said complaint was forwarded under G.D. No. 611 dated 14.06.1998.

29. Sisir Kr. Pramanik, I.O. as PW 15 deposes that he had been to the spot at Aliakulia village and examined Imman Ali Molla, PWI alongwith other villagers. He also recorded the statements of the appellant and on the basis of such discovery statement (Exhibit 8), the severed head of the victim was recovered. It is available from examination-in-chief that the spot situated to the east of Taldi 21 Railway Station is a ditch in between KM Post 40/4 and 40/5 right side and Siddique lifted the head of the victim from the ditch. The head was wrapped with salowar and panties of the victim. The Chopper was recovered as per his showing from the said ditch and a seizure list in respect of the articles recovered was prepared by the I.O. at the spot and the same was marked as Ext. 2. He also identified the chopper (Material Exhibit II) in the court room. Similarly, the panties (Material Exhibit II) by which the head of Fatema Bibi was wrapped was also identified by him. He also made the Inquest of the severed head and such report was marked as Ext. 3. On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against two accused persons u/s 302/201/34 IPC.

V. Witness to Inquest

30. Jitendranath Mondal, PW7, is an independent witness to the Inquest of such decapitated body. He has been serving at Sonarpur Railway PWD office for 21 years. He deposes that when he had been to attend his duties at KM Post No. 40/3 to 40/4 at 9 AM he found a headless dead body having only one arm by the side of railway line. At almost 12 PM police personnel from G.R.P.S. arrived at the place where the dead body was lying. He signed the Inquest report at the spot in the presence of the police and proved his signature. During cross-examination it reveals that the distance from Post No. 40/3 to 40/4 is about 200 yards. No other question was put to him and as such his entire testimony on the point of recovery of the decapitated dead body remains unchallenged.

Our views 22

31. Indubitably, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence of this gruesome murder of diabolical dimensions and the case of the prosecution entirely rests on circumstantial evidence. But it does not necessarily mean that such situation had weakened the prosecution case. In this context reference can be made to a recent judgement reported in AIR 2008 (SC) 1537 [Liyakat.. Petitioner vs. State of Uttaranchal.. Respondent] wherein it is observed by the Apex Court as under ;-

" For a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed."

32. It is, therefore, uniformly held by the Apex Court in different judicial pronouncements that in cases where evidence is purely circumstantial in nature the facts and circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and also have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In fact, those circumstances must be cogently established and the same should be of a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the 23 accused and in their totality must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within all human probability the offences were committed by accused and none else (Vide AIR 1989 (SC), 1890 (Ashok Kr. Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P.), 1994(2) SCC 220 (Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal) and 2003 Cr. L.J. (SC) 5054 (State of Haryana Vs Jagbir Singh). In a recent ruling reported in AIR 2009 SC 56 (Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat Vs. State of Maharashtra) it is reiterated that conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are proved beyond reasonable doubt and are found incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person.

33. It is an admitted position that the entire edifice of prosecution in this case is solely built upon three pillars i.e. (i) extra judicial confession (ii) recovery of articles and (iii) cogent circumstances (nature of such circumstances leading to conclusive finding about the guilt of the accused has been dealt with in preceding two paragraphs 30 and 31).

34. Before embarking on appreciation of evidentiary value of witnesses before whom extra-judicial confession was made it would be apt to examine the principles governing its trustworthiness and admissibility in evidence. It is however, settled position of law that no Court should proceed with the presumption that it is a week peace of evidence. Rather much reliance can be placed upon extra-judicial confession if it is corroborated by ocular evidence and surrounding circumstances on record.

35. In paragraph 17 of a recent case of Kusuma Ankama Rao vs. State of A.P. reported in 2008 Cr. L.J. 3502 the Apex Court has explained the governing principles relating to evidentiary value of extra judicial confession as under :

"...... Extra-judicial confessions are generally those that are made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. ..........Whether or not the confession was voluntarily would depend upon the facts of each case, judged in the light of Section 24. The law is clear that a confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the Court is satisfied that it was voluntary and at that stage the question whether it is true or false does not arise. If the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of a confession appear to cast a doubt on the veracity of voluntariness of the confession, the Court may refuse to act upon the confession, even if it is admissible in evidence. .......A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt. .......Deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved, are among the most effectual proofs in law. An involuntary confession is one which is not the result of the free will of the maker of it. So where the statement is made as a result of harassment and continuous interrogation for several hours after the person is treated as an offender and accused, such statement must be regarded as involunatary......

........ It must be borne in mind that every inducement, threat or promise does not vitiate a confession. Since the object of the rule is to exclude only those confessions which are testimonially untrustworthy, the inducement, threat 25 promise must be such as is calculated to lead to an untrue confession. On the aforesaid analysis the court is to determine the absence or presence of an inducement, promise etc. or its sufficiency and how or in what measure it worked on the mind of the accused."

36. It is, therefore abundantly clear that extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. Confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused.

37. Bearing in mind the governing principles elucidated above we have proceeded to Judge the probative value of extra-judicial confession made before PWs 1,4,8,9,10 & 11. It is recited in the FIR (Exhibit I) that after sensing foul play because of incongruous statement made by the appellant villagers exercised some pressure upon him to ascertain the whereabouts of his wife who accompanied him on previous day. His earlier statement that the victim was kept in his relative's house was found to be false. Since he took the victim from her parental home, the villagers interrogated him to find out correct information on 26 the disappearance of the victim. The word 'pressure' connotes as per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - "the act of trying to persuade or to force somebody to do something." The very word pressure used by the FIR maker or witnesses may, therefore, be construed as their endeavour to persuade the appellant to divulge the correct information leading to disappearance of the victim. The alternative meaning 'to force' the accused to disclose the truth do not appear to be relevant both contextually and factually from the surrounding circumstances narrated by as many as half a dozen PWS before whom confessional statements were given by the appellant. All these six witness have, in fact, stated in one voice highlighting the best and effective use of persuasion through interrogation of a short duration. As a matter of fact, it has not been extracted from any of them during cross-examination that the appellant was forced to confess before them under intimidation or he was subjected to any continuous physical force compelling him to make such confession before them. Some of the witnesses have also clearly spelt out in their evidence that because of persuasion through interrogation the appellant divulged the truth. In fact, as already indicated earlier, there are unrebuttable surrounding circumstances and unimpeachable ocular testimony which lead us to opine that being dictated by his own conscience out of deep sense of guilt the appellant confessed before the co-villagers and, of course, not to strangers. Importantly, the attending circumstances as unfolded by the afore-mentioned PWs tend to show that none of them even used any abusive language, not to speak of being rude and violent, to him.

38. Another very important circumstance is that when such confession was made before the villagers, Police was not even informed about the missing of the victim. Therefore, the presence of the Police or its intervention can easily be ruled out. All the witnesses have corroborated each other by deposing in a very straight- forward manner that when such confession before them was over, they informed the police so that there may not be public disturbance. As a protective measure for the appellant, they handed over him to the police. Undoubtedly, out of those six witnesses PW1 and 10 are parents-in-law, while the rest four are independent co-villagers. In such similarly placed situation, extra- judicial confession was acted upon and it is held by the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Pradhan Vs. The State reported in 1992 Cr. L. J. 3614 as under ;-

" We find the three independent witnesses have spoken about the confession. They were co-villagers and not strangers. Therefore, the ld. Sessions Judge, has rightly believed it and has acted upon."

39. Therefore, in the present case confession being made voluntarily by the appellant before four disinterested co-villagers and parents-in-law in a fit state of mind, it can be utilised against the appellant and the same also may form the basis of conviction. There is also clinching evidence on record to indicate that confession was made using a very simple and unequivocal language that he committed murder of the victim. In response to queries of the villagers he divulged that the victim was brought to a field at a short distance from Taldi, Railway Station and was murdered. All the witnesses before whom he made confession have uniformly and consistently reiterated that the appellant 28 confessed that he murdered the victim and such confession was, in fact, not couched with any unambiguous phraseology. The surrounding circumstances which prompted the appellant to make confession was subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny and it appears that the time and place of making confession was congenial and such confession was not inspired by any improper or co-lateral consideration 'for circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be a true one.' In this context reliance can also be placed upon a ruling of the Apex Court reported in 1990 Cr. L. J. 2289 SC 2140 (Kishore Chand Vs. State of Himchal Pradesh). It is ruled therein that 'the unambiguous extra-judicial confession possesses high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity'.

40. On a critical analysis of the corroborative evidence adduced by PWs 1, 4, 8, 9, 10 & 11 coupled with a close dissection of other relevant surrounding circumstances and weighing them in the scale of probabilities, we feel satisfied to hold that extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was voluntary one and was not the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under section 24 of Evidence Act and was not extracted, in suspicious circumstances to circumvent sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It has rightly been pointed out by the learned Trial Court as under ; -

"There is no evidence and materials on record to show that the accused Siddique Sardar was assaulted and tortured for such confession. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence of those PWs that the extra-judicial confession of accused 29 Siddique was obtained by duress or coercion or influence or inducement or oppression."

41. In such view of the matter we have no hesitation in placing implicit trust on extra-judicial confession of the appellant made before half a dozen PWs. In our considered opinion, such extra-judicial confession can be acted upon and accordingly conviction can safely be secured on the basis of the same. Thus, Mrs. Ghosh's doubt on the admissibility of extra-judicial confession stands dispelled.

42. On the question of admissibility of appellant's statement leading to recovery of incriminating articles in terms of section 27 of the Evidence Act, this court is required to examine legal and factual aspects involved therein. In this context it would be apt to refer to a ruling reported in AIR 1994 SC 2420 (Suresh Chandra Bahri, Appellant Vs. State of Bihar, Respondent). It is observed therein that there was accused's confessional disclosure statement to the police officer during investigation in terms of section 27 of Evidence Act and on the basis of it, incriminatory articles were found and seized. Evidence was also led to show that articles belonged to the deceased. Such disclosure statement was accepted to be true and also worthy of credence. In the present case disclosure statement (Exhibit 8) was recorded by the police during police custody of the appellant and there are public witnesses in whose presence such recovery was made. As already discussed earlier there are overwhelmingly strong and sufficient materials and circumstances on record to indicate that incriminating wearing apparels i.e. salowar Kamiz and panties which were used for wrapping the 'cut head' of the victim was taken out from a ditch in pursuance of disclosure 30 statement (Exhibit 8) made by the accused and all such articles together with incriminating weapon i.e. chopper which was used for commission of such a dastardly crime was also recovered by the police pursuant to discovery statement made by the appellant. All these articles were seized under a proper seizure list (Exhibit 2) in the presence of independent co-villagers. There was also recovery of severed head and headless body of the victim as per showing of the appellant. Therefore, such disclosure statement (Exhibit 8) can be accepted to be true and creditworthy.

43. Reliance can also be placed upon another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 1691 (State of Maharashtra, Appellant Vs. Damunath Sinda & others, Respondent). It is held that "the basic idea embedded in section 27 of Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent event. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum."

44. Relying upon the principles of law discussed above, we are of the view that the facts discovered pursuant to disclosure statement of the appellant (Exhibit 8) serve as a direct link to the commission of crime. As a matter of fact, information leading to the discovery of the severed head of the victim, and incriminating 31 chopper used for hacking the victim to death as also wearing apparels of the victim forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is, in fact, one link in the chain of proof and the other links are to be forged / connected in a legal manner. Therefore, the discovery of weapon of crime i.e. chopper has become very much relevant in this case in view of the established fact that it has been proved and clearly proved by trustworthy evidence that the recovered weapon i.e. chopper was connected with the crime of gruesome murder of the victim. So some specific portion of the discovery statement (Exhibit 8) which contains the relevant information leading to afore-mentioned discoveries, in our considered opinion, is absolutely credible and as such the same can be used as evidence. In that view of the matter it is an important circumstance connecting the appellant with the commission of the crime.

45. Adverting to circumstantial evidence, it appears that on proper evaluation of prosecution evidence on record in its proper perspective, the following circumstances, would form a chain of circumstances established and relied upon by the prosecution ;-

i) The appellant had amorous relationship with the victim who used to coach her as a home tutor and such relationship culminated in registration of marriage, even though there was an initial resistance by her parents.

ii) The victim used to stay at her parental home after marriage, although the appellant was also a resident of the same village.

iii) On 12.06.1998 in the afternoon the victim was taken from her parental home by the appellant ostensibly for a visit of the couple to his relatives' house.

iv) Appellant's return to his village alone on the following day and remaining indifferent to his wife's absence from the village.

v) Being confronted by the parents of the victim as also by co-villagers suspecting foul play, appellant's setting up a false defence of leaving her at his relative's house.

vi) On a prompt enquiry by a common relation to his relative's house, such plea was found to be false.

vii) His conduct in not lodging even a missing diary in the shape of a GD Entry in the local PS after disappearance of his wife from his company.

viii) Extra-judicial confession made by him before his parents - in - law and co-

villagers on 13.06.1998. prior to the lodging of an FIR before the PS.

ix) All the four disinterested co-villagers stand corroborated by each other on the place, time and manner of such confession before them.

x) Post Mortem Examination of both the severed head and trunk held separately and covered by two separate reports substantiate the factum of beheading the victim with the sharp cutting weapon like a chopper.

xi) Confirmation by the PM doctor that the hacked head and decapitated trunk belonged to the same individual.

xii) The victim was last seen by her mother and other inmates of the house with the appellant when she was taken by him from his in-laws house. 33

xiii) The factum of handing over him to the Police Officer, was preceded by extra-judicial confession and followed by lodgment of an FIR to the PS.

xiv) Immediately after lodgment of an FIR, recovery of the victim's severed head wrapped with her wearing salowar and panties from a ditch by the police pursuant to the relevant information furnished through his discovery statement (Exhibit 8) while in police custody.

xv) Subsequent recovery of decapitated dead body of the victim from the side of railway track on the basis of information supplied by him in his discovery statement (Exhibit 8).

xvi) Further recovery of incriminating chopper being the weapon of offence from the ditch in terms of discovery statement (Exhibit 8).

xvii) Seizure of wearing apparels of the victim and incriminating chopper in the presence of independent witnesses (vide Exhibit 2).

46. We have appreciated and evaluated circumstantial evidence on record with utmost care and circumspection. After taking such a cautious approach we feel satisfied to hold from the corroborative materials on record that all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is found of being negatived on evidence. The chain of circumstances as enumerated in the preceding paragraph and relied upon by the prosecution have fully been established and the cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances as established are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. In our considered view, the extra-judicial confession and the last seen situation can also be taken as two additional links to the circumstantial evidence that had 34 already been established with the recovery of incriminating articles and materials coupled with other connected evidence and surrounding circumstances on record. In such view of the matter I.O.'s failure to send the blood sample of severed head and decapitated trunk for forensic or D.N.A. test as pointed out by Mrs. Ghosh is of no consequence.

47. The next question that requires consideration is whether the heinous crime perpetrated by appellant comes under the purview of section 302 IPC. It is established from materials on record that in a barbaric manner the victim's head was severed from her body with the help of a chopper. Such a dastardly nature of crime leaves no iota of doubt in our mind to hold that such a murderous assault on the victim was done with the intention of causing her death or with a definite knowledge that injuries inflicted by him would cause instantaneous death of the victim. Such intention of the assailant can easily be gathered from all the relevant facts and attending circumstances of the case. Therefore, it is needless to mention that such dastardly attack causing instantaneous death of the victim by severing her head undoubtedly falls within the ambit of section 302 IPC. Here particularly, such intention to cause death is palpably clear from the nature of assault and weapon used to cause death of the victim as also from other legal evidence and circumstances on record. In such fact situation we cannot but hold that the charge under section 302 IPC has been well established against the appellant. The learned Trial Court's order of conviction and sentence should, therefore, be upheld.

48. On our assessment of entire evidence and circumstances on record we are of the view that the ld. Trial Court is absolutely justified in observing that "barring the evidence of PW10 who found him (Hannan Molla) with the accused Siddique Ali, when he came to the house of defacto complainant PWI to take Fatema, there is no other reliable and clinching evidence on record to establish that the accused Hannan took part in the commission of offence with common intention in respect of the charge u/s 302/201/34 IPC." Learned Trial Court's ultimate finding "that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge in respect of the offence u/s 302/201/34 IPC against the accused Hannan Molla, beyond any reasonable doubt" need not, therefore, be disturbed.

In such circumstances an order of acquittal passed in favour of co-accused Hannan Molla, by the learned court below stands affirmed.

49. The appellant Md. Siddique Ali Sardar was also charged under section 201 IPC. The very fact that the head of the victim after its decapitation with the help of a chopper in a very brutal and violent manner kept concealed in a ditch, undoubtedly, points to the deliberate act of the principal offender in making the evidence of his own crime to disappear. But the question arises as to whether charge under section 201 IPC is legally tenable against the principal offender, the appellant. In this context, a close look to the penal section 201 IPC itself would reveal that the opening words "whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed" clearly indicates that the actual culprit is the person other than one who knows or has reason to believe that an offence has been committed, and as such the language of the said section itself does not 36 suggest that the section would apply to a person who has committed an offence. In such view of the matter reliance can be placed upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1979 Cr. L.J. 1025 (Harishchandrasing Sajjansing Rathod and another, Appellants Vs. The State of Gujarat, Respondent). It is ruled therein that the word 'whoever' occurring in the opening part of section 202 refers to a person other than the offender and has no application to the person who is alleged to have committed the principal offence. Such being the present position of law, the principal charge us/ 302 IPC being established against the main accused Md. Siddique Ali Sardar, he can not be held guilty of causing disappearance of evidence.

50. True, there are apparent discrepancies in the testimony of some of the PWs as pointed out by Mrs. Ghosh. But those discrepancies in our considered view are minor in nature and such minor inconsistencies are bound to occur in the natural testimony of truthful witnesses. We are, therefore, not prepare to attach much importance to such inconsistencies of minor nature since the same do not affect the substratum of the prosecution version. Moreso, whenever the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt by cogent and consistent circumstantial evidence on record. Mrs. Ghosh's argument, therefore, fails on that score.

51. In the light of foregoing discussion, we feel convinced to hold that the prosecution has proved and clearly proved its case by adducing legal evidence through cogent consistent and clinching circumstances on record without any 37 breakage of links in respect of the charge under section 302 IPC against the appellant.

Conclusion

52. Before parting with the Judgement, with deep concern, we may point out that perpetration of such a despicable crime of hacking one's own wife to death by decapitation is shocking and alarming. The perpetrator of such a brutal and barbaric atrocity upon a hapless girl of tender age must be brought to book and not let off on any pretext to prevent recurrence of such horrendous crime in future as also to enhance the sense of security and confidence in the mind of the public at large.

Decision

53. Accordingly, impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.03 and 29.11.03 stands affirmed. The instant Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

Direction

54. Let a copy of the Judgement and order together with Lower Court Record be sent down forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information.

55. Another copy of this Judgement and order also be forwarded to the Superintendent, Correctional Home, 24 Parganas (South) for communication of the gist of the order to the appellant.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis.

(Raghunath Ray, J.) 38 I agree, (Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.) 39

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)