Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mihir Mondal & Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 24 August, 2023
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Item No. 56 & 57
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth
C.R.A. 734 of 2014
Mihir Mondal & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal
For the Appellant no. 1: Ms. Afreen Begum, Advocate
For the Appellant no. 2: Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Advocate,
Mr. Shiladitya Banerjee, Advocate.
Heard on : 16.8.2023 and 24.8.2023.
Judgment on : 24.8.2023.
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
1. Appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated
29.11.2014 (Impugned Judgment) passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Redesignated) Court, Bankura in sessions trial case no.
01(5)2023 arising out of Sessions Case No.37(09)2012 convicting the
appellants for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections
302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer
2
imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34
IPC and to suffer imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months
more for the offence punishable under Sections 201/34 IPC. Both the
sentences shall run concurrently.
Prosecution case:-
2. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants is to the effect
that on 22.03.211 at around 5:30 a.m. Khokan Mondal, PW 2, the uncle
of the deceased Prasanta, heard cries of the wife of the deceased i.e.
Pratima Mondal, appellant no. 2 herein and woke up. Rushing to the
house of Prasanta he found his dead body lying in front of the house
beside a stack of bricks. At 8.45 hrs he lodged a written complaint at
Mejia P.S resulting in registration of Mejia P.S case no. 23 of 2011 dated
22.3.2011 under section 302 IPC against unknown accused. PW 14, SI
Supriya Ranjan Maji took over investigation of the case. He visited the
place of occurrence. He prepared inquest and sent the dead body for
postmortem examination. It may not be out of place to note that Pratima
was one of the witnesses to the inquest.
3. On 24.3.2011, PW 14 again visited the place of occurrence. He
noticed blood stains on the wall of the bedroom of the deceased. He also
noticed an empty cardboard box on which 'Halonix Limited' was printed.
There were blood stains on the box. He seized the cardboard box
containing blood stains as well as sample of blood from the wall of the
3
room. On the same day he arrested Pratima, accused No.2. It is alleged
that during the interrogation Pratima made a disclosure statement
claiming that she knew where the hammer used for the murder of her
husband was concealed. On 26.3.2011, PW 14 seized a blood stained
hammer kept behind the stair case of the house on the showing of
Pratima. Forensic report showed presence of blood on the box and
sample seized from the room as well as on the hammer edge. However,
serologist was unable to give definite opinion with regard to the origin
and type of blood as the blood stains had disintegrated. During the
course of the investigation Mihir Mondal, appellant no. 1, who is said to
be the paramour of Pratima surrendered in Court. Chargesheet was filed
against both the accused persons and charges were framed under
sections 302/201/34 IPC.
4. In course of trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and
exhibited number of documents to prove its case.
5. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false
implication.
6. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned
judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.
Prosecution evidence:-
7. Prosecution examined the following witnesses :-
P.W 1 Dulal Majhi is a neighbor of the deceased. He deposed that
on 22.3.2011, in the morning, he heard hue and cry and woke up. He
4
saw dead body of Prasanta outside his room in front of one of his
windows. He further deposed that the brother and mother of Prasanta,
who used to ordinarily resided with him, were not present in the house
since 20.3.2011. He had seen Prasanta with his wife Pratima in the
house on that night, i.e, 21.03.2011. At about 1 a.m. on 22.3.2011 he
had seen appellant no. 1 proceeding towards the house of Prasanta. He
also deposed that he had seen Mihir and Pratima gossiping with each
other near a tube-well. They had an illicit relationship. During the cross
examination, he stated that on the night he had woken up to attend
nature's call and went towards the village road on the southern side of
the house. There was no street light in the locality. He also admitted the
factum of illicit relationship between Mihir and Pratima as a rumour.
8. P.W 2, Khokan Mondal, is the uncle of the deceased. He deposed
that at 5/5.30 a.m. on the fateful day he had woken up hearing the
sounds of weeping. He went to the house and found the dead body of his
nephew Prasanta lying outside his room near a stack of bricks. There
was bleeding injury on the right ear and forehead. Pratima did not
disclose how Prasanta was murdered. Police sealed the room of
Prasanta. He lodged FIR, Ext 1. Police came to the spot. He signed the
inquest report. One month prior to the incident, he had seen Pratima
and Mihir gossiping outside the house of Prasanta. On 24.3.2011 police
seized the sample of blood and cardboard box containing blood stains
from the room of Prasanta. He signed the seizure list. On 26.3.2011 on
5
the showing of Pratima, police seized a hammer beneath the staircase.
During the cross examination, he stated that he did not report the
gossiping between Pratima and Mihir to anybody except his wife. He also
admitted that there was no boundary wall around the house.
9. P.W 3 is another neighbor of the deceased. He deposed that he
saw the dead body of Prasanta with injuries lying outside the house near
a stack of bricks.
10. P.W 4 is the mother of Prasanta. She stated that at the time of
incident, she and her younger son Susanta, were not present at their
home and went to the house of her married daughter at Srirampur,
Ondal. Khokan informed them over the telephone about the untoward
incident. They returned home and she found her son dead. During the
cross examination, she admitted that there was good relationship
between Prasanta and Pratima.
11. P.W 5, Bhupen Mondal, stated that on 22.3.2011 at 2/2.30 a.m.
he woke up to attend nature's call and found Mihir coming out from the
house of Prasanta. He also deposed that on 26.3.2011, on the showing
of Pratima, a hammer had been recovered by the police. He is a
signatory to the seizure Memo of the hammer. During cross
examination, he stated that he told villagers that he had seen Mihir
coming out of the house of Prasanta on the fateful day. Khokan was
present at that time.
6
12. P.W 6, Bandana Mondal, is the wife of Khokan, PW 2. She deposed
that Susanta, younger brother of Prasanta had told her he had seen
Pratima and Mihir in a compromising position. She also saw Pratima
and Mihir gossiping with each other when she had gone to fetch water.
On 22.3.2011 at 5.30 am, she heard cries of Pratima coming from the
house of Prasanta. She found the dead body of Prasanta with bleeding
injuries lying in front of their room. Police sealed the room of Prasanta.
On the next day police seized blood sample and blood stained cardboard
box from the room.
13. P.W 7, Sasthi Mondal, a villager merely deposed that there was
illicit relationship between Pratima and Mihir and the latter had
disappeared soon after the death of Prasanta. In cross examination he
admitted he was not aware of the illicit relationship between them.
14. P.W 8, Sural Bhuin, another villager stated that Pratima and Mihir
were seen gossiping with each other near the tube-well.
15. P.W 9, Swapan Mondal, is the brother-in-law of Prasanta. He
heard the incident from Khokan and came to the house and saw the
body of Prasanta.
16. PW 12, Susanta Mondal, is the younger brother of Prasanta
Mondal. He deposed that he and his mother had gone to visit the house
of his sister on 20.03.2011. On 22.03.2011 he received a telephone call
from his uncle Khokan. His uncle told him to return to their residence.
Returning home, he found Prasanta lying with bleeding injuries outside
7
his room beside a stack of bricks. Three months ago, he had caught
Pratima and Mihir Mondal in an intimate position. He narrated the
incident to his aunt Bandana Mondal. After enquiry he came to know
about the illicit relationship between Pratima and Mihir. On 22.03.2011,
police came to the spot and seized blood stained cardboard box and
blood sample from the room. He signed the seizure list on 26.03.2011.
On the showing of Pratima, blood stained hammer was recovered
beneath the staircase. She signed the seizure list too. During the cross-
examination he admitted that apart from Bandana he had not intimated
the incident of intimacy between the Pratima and Mihir to anyone. He
had come to know about the illicit relationship between Mihir and
Pratima within a month after the death of his brother.
17. PW 13, Smt. Badala Pike, is a villager. She stated that the dead
body of Prasanta was lying on the ground. She found bleeding injuries
on the body. Two days after the incident, police opened the sealed room
of Prasanta and seized a cardboard box and sample of blood.
18. PW 11, Dr. Suparna Datta, is the postmortem doctor. She found
the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-
i) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.6"x 0.1" was placed on the right side of front of neck at the
label of pomum adami 2.4" right to midline.
8
ii) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.4"x 0.1" was placed on the left side of the neck in front, 0.5"
above the label pomum adami and 3"away from midline.
iii) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.5"x 0.1" was placed in front of left side of neck, half inch
below and 0.8" left of injury no. 2.
iv) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.3" x 0.1" was placed 0.5" below and 0.8" medial in front of
left side of neck below the label of injury no. 3.
v) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.2"x 0.1" was placed 1.2" medial and 0.5" below the label of
injury no. 4 in front of left side of neck.
vi) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.6"x 0.1" was placed at the label of pomum adami in front of
left side of neck 2" left of midline.
vii) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.3"x 0.1" was placed in front of right side of neck, 2.5" right of
midline and almost underneath lower boarder of mandible.
viii) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.4"x 0.1" over right side of front of neck 0.8" lateral and half
inch below the injury no. 7.
9
ix) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.3"x 0.1" in front of right side of neck 1 inch medial and 0.5"
below injury no. 8.
x) Crescentric nail scratch abrasion (semi lunar), measuring
0.2" x 0.1" placed in front of right side of neck 1.2" medial and
0.5" below injury no. 9.
19. She opined that the death was due to the effects of manual
strangulation due to the throttling after incapacitating the subject by
head injury with blunt weapon, ante mortem and homicidal in nature.
She proved the postmortem report marked as Ext. 6. She further opined
that the head injury may be caused by hammer or blunt weapon.
22. PW 14, S.I. Supriya Ranjan Maji, is the investigating officer. On
22.03.2011, he received a written complaint from PW 2. He drew up
formal F.I.R., visited the place of occurrence and took photographs of the
dead body marked as Mat. Ext. IV series. He prepared an inquest report
marked as Ext.-2/1. He sent the body of the deceased for postmortem
examination through PW 10. He prepared a rough sketch map of the
place of occurrence, wherefrom, the body was recovered marked as Ext.-
8. He sealed the bedroom of the deceased on 24.03.2011. He searched
the room of the deceased and found blood stains on the wall. He took
snaps of the blood stains marked as Ext-5. He also found a cardboard
box having blood stains. He seized the articles under a seizure list
marked as Ext-3/2. He interrogated Pratima Mondal, wife of the
10
deceased and arrested her. After bringing her to the police station he
again interrogated her, and she made statement that she would be able
to trace out the hammer which had been concealed by her. Extract of the
statement was marked as Ext-10. On 26.03.2011, on the showing of
Pratima, the hammer was recovered from beneath the staircase of the
house. The hammer was seized under the seizure list was marked as
Ext.-4/2. Hammer was produced in the court. He prepared another
sketch map with an index of the bedroom marked as Ext.-11. He
collected postmortem report. Mihir Mondal surrendered before the court
on 12.09.2011. Thereafter he submitted the charge-sheet.
Circumstances relied by the prosecution:-
23. Analysis of the evidence on record shows that the prosecution case
rests on circumstantial evidence. Circumstances relied by the
prosecution against the appellants are as follows:-
(i) Mihir Mondal had an illicit relationship with Pratima, wife of
the deceased. Three months ago, they had been caught in a
compromising position by PW 12. They were also seen
gossiping near the tube well;
(ii) PW 1 saw Mihir Mondal on the fateful day around midnight
i.e. 1:00 AM, proceeding towards the house of Prasanta;
(iii) PW 5, another neighbor saw Mihir coming out of the house
of Prasanta around 2-2.30 AM;
11
(iv) Mihir disappeared from the village after the death of
Prasanta;
(v) Pratima was alone with her deceased husband, Prasanta in
the house on the fateful night. The other inmates viz.,
mother and younger brother of Prasanta had gone to visit
their relation since 20.03.2011;
(vi) Bloodstains were found on the wall and cardboard box kept
inside the room of the deceased Prasanta;
(vii) Pratima, though present in the house with her husband, did
not come out with any plausible explanation with regard to
the cause of death;
(viii) On the leading statement of Pratima, a hammer containing
bloodstains was recovered behind the staircase of the house
of deceased.
24. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra1 the Apex
Court laid down five golden principles in a case based on circumstantial
evidence. The principles are as follows:-
"153. ... (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused
is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
12
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to
be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused."
25. Let me examine the prosecution evidence in the light of the
aforesaid proposition of law to test whether the case meets the requisite
standard of proof to hold that it was the appellants who had committed
the murder of the deceased.
Is involvement of Mihir Mondal in the murder proved?
26. The two most vital circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
against Mihir are as under:-
(i) He had an illicit relationship with Pratima, the wife of
the deceased;
(ii) On the fateful night, he had been seen going towards
the house of the victim and coming out therefrom.
27. With regard to the motive of crime i.e. the illicit relationship
between the appellants, prosecution has primarily relied on Susanta
Mondal (PW 12), the younger brother of the deceased. Susanta stated
that three months prior to the incident, he had seen Pratima and Mihir
in a compromising position. He informed the incident to his aunt (PW 6).
But in his cross-examination, the said witness admitted that he had
come to know of the illicit relationship between the appellants within one
month of the death of his brother. If Susanta had seen the appellants in
a compromising position three months prior to the incident, it is
13
inexplicable how he came to know of the illicit relationship between the
two only one month after the death of his brother.
28. Be that as it may, Susanta's contention with regard to illicit
relationship and the incident of catching the appellants in a
compromising position does not find corroboration from the mother of
the deceased viz., Keya Mondal (PW 4). The said witness is completely
silent about any illicit relationship between her daughter-in-law Pratima
and Mihir. On the other hand, she emphasises there was a good
relationship between Pratima and her husband Prasanta (the deceased).
No doubt, Bandana claims Susanta had informed her that he had caught
Mihir and Pratima in a compromising position, her evidence in this
regard ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. She remained mum with
regard to the said incident and did not even share this vital information
with anyone including her husband, Khokan. Her unnatural conduct
casts doubt with regard to the credibility of her version.
29. Prosecution is a divided house with regard to the incident of
Pratima and Mihir being caught in a compromising position as deposed
by Susanta. Hence, I am unwilling to believe that Susanta with regard to
the incident of finding the appellants in a compromising position.
30. Apart from the aforesaid version, the other evidence with regard to
the illicit relationship is too speculative. PWs 1, 2, 6 and others claim
that they had seen Mihir and Pratima gossiping near the tubewell. It may
not be out of place to note that Mihir is the brother-in-law of Pratima
14
and resided in a nearby village. Pratima had been married to Prasanta 8-
9 months ago and it has come out from the mouth of Keya, mother of
Prasanta (PW 4) that there was good relationship between the couple. It
is all but natural that a newly married bride would be eager to talk and
exchange notes with a relation from her own family i.e. her brother-in-
law. When viewed from this perspective, mere gossiping between the two
does not partake a sinister connotation and cannot be treated as a
convincing proof of illicit relationship between them.
31. It is also relevant to note that PW 1, in his cross-examination,
admitted that the issue of illicit relationship is mere a rumor and
another villager (PW 7) also accepted that he had no personal knowledge
regarding the illicit relationship. Prosecution has singularly failed to
prove the motive of the crime i.e. illicit relationship between Mihir and
Pratima.
32. The other incriminating circumstance viz., presence of Mihir at the
place of occurrence is founded on the versions of PWs. 1 and 5. PW 1
claimed that between midnight and 1.30 AM on 22.03.2011 when he had
woken up and had gone to answer nature's call in a village road situated
at the southern side of the house, he had seen the appellant No.1, Mihir
proceeding towards the house of the deceased. During cross-
examination, he admitted that there was no street light in the locality.
Sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer (PW 14) (Ext.8) shows
that the main road leading to the house of the deceased is on the
15
northern side of the house of PW 1. The witness had claimed that he had
gone to the village road on the southern side of his house to answer
nature's call. There was no streetlight in the locality. Under these
circumstances, it is most unlikely that PW 1 could have noticed Mihir
moving down the main road situated at the northern side of his house
when he was not on that side of the house.
33. Conduct of PW 1 immediately after discovery of the dead body of
Prasanta also does not inspire confidence. In his cross-examination, he
claimed that he withheld this vital information from the uncle of the
deceased (Khokan). Non-disclosure by a witness who had seen a suspect
moving towards the house of the deceased from the family members of
the deceased renders his version in the court suspect and I am unwilling
to rely on his deposition to hold that he had seen Mihir proceeding
towards the house of Prasanta.
34. PW 5, another villager who claimed to have seen Mihir come out of
the house of Prasanta is equally unreliable. He has also claimed that he
had seen Mihir when he woke up to answer nature's call. In the cross-
examination, he stated that he disclosed the incident to Khokan, the FIR
maker. But in the FIR Khokan has not disclosed this vital fact.
35. A First Information Report need not only be used to contradict or
corroborate its maker. Omission in the FIR with regard to a material fact
which is significant for the unfolding of the prosecution case renders
such fact improbable and strikes at the root of the prosecution case.
16
Reference may be made to Ram Kumar Pande v. State of Madhya
Pradesh2 wherein the Court held:-
"9. No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking,
be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case,
it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the
important facts of the occurrence, so far as they were known up to 9-15
p.m. on March 23, 1970, were bound to have been communicated. If his
daughers had seen the appellant inflicting a blow on Harbinder Singh, the
father would certainly have mentioned it in the FIR We think that
omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case,
are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of
the prosecution case."
36. Lack of corroboration from Khokan, PW 1 either in Court or in the
FIR with regard to disclosure by PW 5 about Mihir coming out from the
house of the deceased renders the evidence of the said witness doubtful.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution evidence with regard to
the presence of Mihir near the place of occurrence is not reliable and the
said circumstances cannot be said to have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
37. In the absence of the aforesaid two incriminating circumstances,
the only other circumstances against Mihir relied on by the prosecution
is his disappearance from the village after the incident as deposed by PW
7. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, Mihir had claimed that he was a khalasi (helper) in a truck
and was away from his village in connection with his work. When an
accused gives a probable explanation during his examination under
Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is neither
patently absurd nor improbable, it is the duty of the Court to consider
2
AIR 1975 SC 1026
17
the same. Failure to do so vitiates the conviction. In Reena Hazarika vs.
State of Assam3 the Court observed as follows:-
"19. ... If the accused takes a defence after the prosecution evidence is
closed, under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC the Court is duty-bound under
Section 313(4) CrPC to consider the same. The mere use of the word "may"
cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider or
not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an
accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the prejudice that may
be caused thereby. Whether the defence is acceptable or not and whether
it is compatible or incompatible with the evidence available, is an entirely
different matter. If there has been no consideration at all of the defence
taken under Section 313 CrPC, in the given facts of a case, the conviction
may well stand vitiated."
38. Similar view is reiterated in Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra4
as follows:-
"15. *** *** ***
15.1. *** *** ***
15.2. *** *** ***
15.3. *** *** ***
15.4. *** *** ***
15.5. *** *** ***
15.6. *** *** ***
15.7. *** *** ***
15.8. *** *** ***
15.9. If the accused takes a defence and proffers any alternate version of
events or interpretation, the court has to carefully analyse and consider
his statements.
15.10. Any failure to consider the accused's explanation of incriminating
circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the
conviction."
3
(2019) 13 SCC 289
4
(2023) 5 SCC 522
18
39. Trial Court has not adverted to the explanation of the accused
during his examination under section 313 CrPC. Hence, his absence
after the crime cannot be considered as an incriminating circumstance,
i.e abscondence to bring home the guilt.
40. Thus, I am inclined to hold the circumstances relied upon against
Mihir Mondal are neither convincing nor have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt to form a complete chain to unerringly point to his
guilt. Probable hypothesis of innocence of Mihir cannot be wholly ruled
out.
Did Pratima alone commit the murder?
41. Charge against Pratima is sharing of common intention with co-
accused Mihir Mondal to commit the murder of her husband. It was not
the prosecution case that Pratima alone murdered her husband. No
charge under Section 302 IPC simplicter was framed against her. As
discussed earlier, I am unwilling to accept the prosecution case with
regard to the presence of Mihir at the place of occurrence. I am also not
convinced with regard to the motive of crime i.e. illicit relationship
between the two.
42. Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the State strenuously argues that
there are other incriminating circumstances which establish the guilt of
Pratima beyond doubt. When charge is framed against two accused with
the aid of Section 34 IPC, acquittal of one does not invariably lead to the
acquittal of the other. He relied on Willie (William) Slaney v. State of
19
Madhya Pradesh5 in support of his contention. Vivian Bose, J.
succinctly expounded the aforesaid proposition as follows:-
"62. It is true that if it cannot be ascertained who struck the fatal blow, then the accused cannot be convicted unless the common intention is proved and in that type of case an acquittal of the co-accused may be fatal to the prosecution. But the converse does not hold good, and if the part that the accused played can be clearly brought home to him and if it is sufficient to convict him of murder simpliciter, he cannot escape liability because of the charge unless he can show prejudice."
43. In Willie (William) Slaney (supra), there was direct eyewitness deposing that one of the accused had dealt the fatal blow resulting in death. Hence, acquittal of a co-accused who is alleged to have shared common intention does not affect the culpability of the principal accused who in the facts of the said case was held to have been rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC simpliciter. Non-framing of charge under section 302 IPC simpliciter in those facts was not considered prejudicial or fatal.
44. Mr. Das submits Pratima was present with her husband Prasanta in the room on the fateful night. There was no other inmate in the house. She failed to come out with any explanation regarding homicidal death of her husband. Even if the presence of co-accused Mihir is discounted, presence of Pratima at the place of occurrence is proved beyond doubt and her silence when read in conjunction with other incriminating circumstances would establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
5 AIR 1956 SC 116 20
45. The special circumstances relied by the prosecution against Pratima are as follows:-
i) Pratima was present in the house with her husband Prasanta.
No other inmate was present in the house;
ii) She did not explain how her husband suffered homicidal death;
iii) Bloodstains were present on the wall of the room and cardboard box kept in the room which probabilises the murder was committed inside the room of Prasanta;
iv) On the leading statement of Pratima, the weapon of offence i.e. the hammer was recovered.
46. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution who contended that the aforesaid circumstances establish the guilt of Pratima.
47. Initially, the prosecution case levelled against Pratima was one of conjoint liability. Charge was framed against Mihir and Pratima alleging that they shared common intention and in furtherance of such common intention committed the murder of Prasanta. Motive to commit the crime i.e. illicit relationship between the two has not been proved. The presence of Mihir at the place of occurrence is also doubtful.
48. In this situation, prosecution seeks to shift the culpability exclusively on the shoulder of Pratima, primarily on the premise that she was present in the room where the offence occurred and offered no 21 explanation regarding the cause of death. Prosecution has also relied on the presence of bloodstains on the wall of the room and on the cardboard box found inside the room to establish murder had been committed in the room occupied by Pratima and Prasanta. PW 14 claimed that he had sealed the room on 22.03.2011. Two days later i.e. on 24.03.2011, he searched the room again and recovered a cardboard box with blood stains and bloodstains on the wall. Forensic report shows the presence of blood on the items, but the origin of blood i.e. human blood and its type could not be ascertained. Evidence on record shows that at around 5.30 A.M. in the morning of 22.03.2011, Pratima, on seeing her husband's dead body outside the room, had cried out for help. Khokan, uncle of the deceased and others assembled at the spot. Thereafter, Khokan registered FIR. None of the witnesses apart from Khokan stated that Pratima was questioned with regard to the cause of death. Even this version of Khokan appears to be an embellishment as the same is absent in the FIR. There is no evidence on record to show that how after the murder in the room, the body had been shifted to the courtyard and kept beside a stack of bricks. It is not improbable Pratima seeing her husband dead had embraced him. This would cause bloodstains on her hands and body. Thereafter, she had entered the room and may have touched various articles causing the transfer of stains on them.
22
49. This is a probable hypothesis which has not been ruled out by the prosecution. On the contrary, no trail of blood from inside the room to the spot where the body was found was detected. It also relevant to note that the prosecution has not probabilised through the postmortem doctor that the body of the victim bore marks of dragging which is inevitable if the murder had been committed in the house and thereafter the body had been kept in the courtyard beside a stack of bricks. In this backdrop, it is hazardous to conclude, relying on a few stains of blood on the wall and cardboard box that the murder was committed inside the room and thereafter the body was shifted and kept beside a stack of bricks.
50. If the prosecution fails to prove beyond doubt that the murder was committed inside the room where the couple was residing, access of a third party to the victim cannot be ruled out. It may not be out of place to note that there was no boundary wall around the courtyard and the spot from where the body was found was accessible to all. Before the Court draws an adverse inference against an accused, prosecution is required to establish the continuity in the links of the chain of circumstances, so as to lead to the only and inescapable conclusion of the accused being the assailant, inconsistent or incompatible with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused6. Prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence beyond 6 Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289 (see para 9) 23 doubt. Under such circumstances, it is not advisable to draw adverse inference against the appellant Pratima under section 106 of the Evidence Act.
51. The other vital circumstance viz., recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. hammer on the leading statement of Pratima is most unnatural and shrouded with mystery. Police conducted a search in the house on 24.03.2011. It is claimed that bloodstains were recovered from the room. Though the said articles were recovered on 24.03.2011, it is strange that why the entire house was not searched on that day. Be that as it may, Pratima was arrested and is said to have made a disclosure statement. Though the disclosure statement was made on 24.03.2011, alleged recovery was made after two days i.e. 26.03.2011 from behind the staircase of the house. No explanation is forthcoming with regard to the delay in connection to the alleged recovery.
52. Evidence has come on record that the house is a one-storied building and the sketch map of the house (Ext.11) does not show the presence of a staircase. It is also very unlikely that in a one-storied building, there will be a staircase inside the house. So, the prosecution has not been able to prove the exact place from where recovery was made. Moreover, there is a time gap of two days from the date of disclosure and the alleged recovery. During this time, the accused was in the custody of the police and the possibility of planting the hammer at 24 the behest of the other relations of the deceased (who had complete access to the house) cannot be said to be improbable.
53. Prosecution also did not collect fingerprints from the weapon of offence and there is nothing to show that it was Pratima who had used the weapon and dealt the blow on the victim to incapacitate and thereafter strangulate him. This is most essential to establish the charge of murder simpliciter against Pratima alone.
54. Recovery of the weapon of offence after two days of disclosure and that too from a place i.e. staircase which appears to be non-existent in a one storied building, this vital circumstance appears to have not been proved beyond doubt. When prosecution fails to lead sufficient evidence to establish the incriminating circumstances beyond doubt by leading sufficient and convincing evidence, onus does not shift on an accused to discharge his burden.
55. In this backdrop, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the vital incriminating circumstances viz., recovery of hammer on the leading statement of Pratima and the place of occurrence inside the room of Prasanta beyond doubt. Accordingly, no adverse inference can be drawn against his wife Pratima.
56. Hence, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to both the appellants.
57. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
25
58. The appellants viz. Mihir Mondal and Pratima Mondal shall be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case, upon execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court which shall remain in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
59. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial Court at once.
60. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellants upon completion of all formalities.
I agree.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) as/akd/sdas/tkm/PA