Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Basudev Paul vs The State Of West Bengal on 22 June, 2018
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi, Ravi Krishan Kapur
153
AB/Suvendu/
Aloke & PA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Ravi Krishan Kapur
C.R.A. 977 of 2013
BASUDEV PAUL
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Amicus Curiae : Mrs. Anasuya Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Advocate,
Mr. Monoranjan Mahato, Advocate,
Heard on : June 22, 2018
Judgement on : June 22, 2018
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :
The appeal is directed against and order dated 26th November, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial Case No.324 of 2010 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.
The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant, is to the effect that on 6.7.2010 he had killed his wife by causing severe bleeding injuries on her person by a sharp-cutting weapon and thereupon he went to the roof of his house and tried to jump down. Seeing such behaviour on the part of the appellant, his relations and neighbours intervened and brought him down whereupon he admitted that he had killed his wife. It is further alleged that the relationship between the couple was not cordial and that the appellant had also tried to kill his wife earlier by administering electric shock. As a result, she had withdrawn from her matrimonial home and had taken refuge at her parental home for some time prior to the incident. Son of the appellant (P.W.1) lodged written complaint with the police authorities resulting in registration of Jagatballavpur Police Station Case No.211 of 2010 dated 6.7.2010 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
In conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Howrah for trial and disposal. Charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.
In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge by the impugned judgement and order dated 26th November, 2010 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
Nobody appears for the appellant.
Mrs. Anasuya Sinha, learned advocate is requested to appear in this matter as amicus curiae and assist this court. She argued that the extra judicial confession of the appellant appears to be an afterthought, as most of the witnesses had not stated such fact in their earlier statements. She also submitted that the attending facts and circumstances in the instant case give rise to a serious doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution case. The appellant had behaved in an unnatural manner and it is unsafe, therefore, to rely on his purported extra-judicial confession to bring home the guilt. She further submitted that the conduct of the appellant also gives an impression that he was not in a fit state of mind on that particular day and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant ought to be set aside on that score alone.
On the other hand, Mr. Sur, learned lawyer appearing for the State argued that all the witnesses including the close relations of the appellant stated that the appellant had inimical relation with the victim. He had tried to kill her earlier also. On the fateful day the appellant dealt grievous blows on the victim and when she died, he became repentant and admitted his guilt. Extra judicial confession was made to close neighbours and is most natural and convincing. He, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
P.W.1 is the son of the appellant and also the defacto complainant in the instant case. He deposed that on 6.7.2010 his father assaulted his mother with a cliver (bonti) around 9.00 a.m. and she died. He had gone to the market to sell vegetables. His wife, Tumpa Pal (P.W.11) informed the incident to him over phone. He rushed home and found his mother lying dead in the kitchen in a pool of blood. He deposed that one month ago his father tried to kill his mother by administering electric shock when local people saved her mother. One Ratan Mukherjee informed the matter to the police phone. Police came to the house and took the deadbody of his mother along with bonti. His father admitted to police that he had killed his mother with a bonti. He signed on the seizure list (Ext.1). He proved the written complaint (Ext.2). Police seized bloodstained earth and control earth under a seizure list. He proved the seizure list (Ext.4).
P.W. 2, Ratan Mukherjee, is a neighbour of the appellant and he deposed that he heard an alarm coming from the pump house which is near the house of the appellant. He rushed to the place and he found that the appellant was lying on the ground. They convinced the appellant to go inside the house. After sometime, the appellant started shouting that nobody could save him as, he had killed his wife. He is the scribe of the first information report. He proved the first information report (Exhibit 2/1). He put his signature on the seizure list.
P.W. 3, Manas Paul, is the nephew of the appellant. He also stated that on 06.07.2010 at 10 a.m. he heard an alarm from his house and upon reaching the house he found people were trying to bring down his uncle and Basudeb from the roof and he was claiming that he had murdered his wife. Police came to the place and prepared inquest. He signed on the inquest report.
P.W. 4, Smt. Asha Malik, is an neighbour of the appellant. She stated that on 06.07.2010 at about 9/10 a.m. she was in her kitchen. She heard an alarm and found that the appellant was trying to jump from the roof of the house by holding electric wire. The appellant fell on the ground. They gave water to the appellant. Thereafter they went to their house and suddenly heard an alarm and after coming out from his house she found the appellant was standing on the tile shed of the roof of his house and shouting that he had killed his wife. They found the wife of the appellant lying inside the kitchen room in a pool of blood.
P.W. 5, Dibakar Paul, is the son-in-law of the victim and P.W. 6, Smt. Bela Paul, is his daughter. Both of them were the post occurrence witnesses and had deposed that they heard that the appellant had killed his wife. P.W. 6 stated that the appellant used to suspect his wife.
P.W. 10, Biswanath Pal, is the other son-in-law of the appellant. He stated that his brother-in-law informed him about the incident. He came to the place of occurrence and found that his father-in-law had admitted that he killed his wife. He is the signature of the inquest report.
P.W. 11, Tumpa Pal, is the wife of P.W. 1 and the daughter-in-law of the victim. She stated that on 06.07.2010 at about 9/9.30 a.m. her father-in-law tried to commit suicide by electric shock and para people saved him. Thereafter, she went to the kitchen and found that her mother-in-law was lying on the ground in a pool of blood. She informed her husband about the incident. Police came and took away the dead body of her mother-in-law. She signed on the seizure list.
P.W. 13, Prosanta Mallick, is another neighbour and has corroborated the incident of the appellant trying to commit suicide by jumping from the roof of his house and thereafter shouting that he had killed his wife.
P.W. 8, Dr. Joydipto Chattopadhyay, is the P.M. doctor who found the following injuries on the body of the victim and opined that the victim died due to injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He proved the injury report (Exhibit 7). He stated that the injuries could be caused if anybody assaulted by sharpen side of a Bonti.
1. Incised chop wound 2"x½"x bone over right forehead ½" above right lateral eyebrow with underlying cut fracture of 1¾".
2. Incised chop wound 2½" x ¼" x bone over vertex with underlying cut fracture of 1¾.
3. 2 punctured wounds ¼" over midline chest 1½" apart on left of midline and one right of midline, right one being 3½" below suprasternal notch and left being 4", on dissection seen to have pierced skin, fascia, muscles, fracturing ribs at corresponding level and finally ending puncturing the pericardium and heart with surrendering extravasation of blood of 6" x 5".
4. Scalp haematoma 4" x 3" right frontoparietal scalp.
5. Subdural haemorrhage diffused over both cerebral hemispheres along with based.
P.W. 15 is the investigating officer in the instant case. He investigated the case and submitted charge sheet.
From the evidence on record it appears that on 06.07.2010 at about 9-9.30 a.m. the wife of the appellant had suffered due to sharp cutting injuries and had died in the kitchen room. Evidence of the local neighbours particularly P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 13 and that of P.W. 3, the nephew of the victim, establishes that on or about the homicidal death of his wife the appellant had climbed onto his roof and tried to commit suicide by jumping to the ground. He was saved by the neighbours and thereafter he again climbed to the roof and shouted that he had killed his wife. P.W. 11, the daughter -in-law of the appellant, seeing the victim brutally murdered informed her husband P.W. 1, the son of the appellant, who came to the place of occurrence and lodged the first information report. Inimical between the couple has been deposed by both the children of the appellant, that is, P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, his daughter. It has come on record that the appellant six months earlier had tried to kill his wife by administering electric shock.
It has been argued that the conduct of the appellant at the time of occurrence does not appear to be natural. Therefore the extra-judicial confession of the appellant ought not to be believed.
From the narration of the prosecution witnesses it appears that the appellant was with the victim at the time of occurrence. There is no scope of any other person causing the brutal injuries on the victim resulting in her death. Prior inimical relation between the couple has been deposed by their children and it appears that the appellant was suspicious about his wife. Out of such suspicion the appellant had dealt brutal and repeated violent blows on the victim resulting in severe bleeding injuries and her death. Number of injuries found on the body of the victim as per P.M. report leaves no doubt in my mind that the appellant intended to kill the victim. After killing his wife out of such remorse he tried to commit suicide and when local people intervened he admitted to have killed his wife before them as well as in presence of his nephew P.W. 3.
In this factual backdrop I am of the opinion that the extra-judicial confession of the appellant to his relation and/or close neighbours soon after the ghastly incident is natural and does not appear to be improbable.
It has been strongly contended that the version of the prosecution witnesses with regard to extra-judicial confession is an afterthought, as the witnesses did not make any such statement to the police. I note that the appellant had made the extra- judicial confession is reflected in the first information report itself. In view of such fact I am not willing to accept the contention of the learned amicus curiae that the extra-judicial confession is an afterthought and ought not to be relied upon. On the other hand, the circumstances in the instant case show that the appellant was with his wife on the fateful day when she suffered a brutal end. No one other than the appellant was with his wife when she suffered bleeding injuries and died. Soon thereafter the appellant tried to commit suicide and upon intervened by locals and his relations he made the extra-judicial confession to them out of remorse. Hence, I find no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case that the appellant had made extra- judicial confession that he killed his wife. I also note that the relation between the couple was not good and the appellant used to suspect the victim and had tried to murder his wife earlier. Therefore, there was sufficient motive for the appellant to commit the murder. However, it is possible that soon after commission of the crime the appellant had suffered deep remorse and tried to commit suicide and when he was saved by local people and relations, he admitted to his guilt to them. I am however, unable to accept the contention of the learned amicus curiae that such post-occurrence conduct would absolve the appellant from the crime on the score of temporary insanity. It is pertinent to note that the plea of insanity had been taken before the trial court on behalf of the defence. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to sustain such a desperate plea taken for the first time at the appellant stage.
For the aforesaid reasons I uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and/or trial shall be set off against substantive sentence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Copy of the judgement along with LCR be sent down to the trial Court at once for necessary compliance.
I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Ms. Sinha as amicus curiae to this Court for disposing the appeal.
Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)