Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sitaram Baskey vs The State Of West Bengal on 11 January, 2018
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Item no. 325
Ss/Aloke
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj
C.R.A. 721 of 2004
SITARAM BASKEY
Versus
The STATE OF WEST BENGAL
For the Appellant : Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur, Advocate
Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Advocate
Heard on : 11.01.2018
Judgement on : 11.01.2018
Joymalya Bagchi, J.:
The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 31.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia, in Sessions Trial no. 13 of 2004 arising out of Sessions Case No. 24 of 2004 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.
The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 25.07.1999 at about 5 p.m. Sukram Hembram was assaulted by the appellant with an axe and as a result of such injury he expired. Nepal Hembram, son of the victim saw the appellant going away from the place of occurrence with an axe and found his father lying on the road with grievous injury. It was alleged that there was dispute between the appellant and the victim as the appellant had accused the victim to practice witchcraft causing illness of his daughter Sabitri Baskey. Over such issue, Nepal lodged written complaint at Bandwan P.S. against the appellant resulting in registration of Bandwan P.S. Case No. 24/99 dated 25.07.1999 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of investigation, appellant was arrested and the weapon of assault, namely, axe was seized from his possession. The stains on the seized weapon tested positive to human blood.
Charges were framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia for trial and disposal.
The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.
In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by judgment and order dated 31.07.2004 convicting and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no eyewitness in the instant case. None of the prosecution witness saw the appellant to assault the victim. It is also submitted that no witness has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 relating to the motive for commission of crime. The seizure of the axe from the appellant has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He, accordingly, prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
Mr. Sur with Mr. Mahata, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the State argued that the prosecution witnesses saw the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence with the axe. Soon thereafter he was arrested and the axe was seized from his possession. The serologist's report showed that axe was stained of human blood. The motive of the crime was also proved. These circumstances clearly established that the appellant had committed the murder of the victim.
Let me examine the rival versions in the light of the evidence on record. P.W. 9 is the son of the victim and the de facto complainant in the case. He stated that on the day of occurrence he had gone to take bath and when he was returning after taking bath he found that his father was murdered by the appellant and the appellant was fleeing away with an axe on his shoulder. There was dispute between his father and the appellant. The appellant used to call his father 'witch'. He submitted written complaint to the police. Chayan Singh (P.W.
12) wrote the written complaint. He signed on the written complaint marked as exbt. 5.
In cross-examination, he stated that he had gone to bathe in the pond when he was informed that his father had been murdered. On hearing this he along with others came to the spot and found the dead body of his father on the road. He informed his brother Suklal and went to the police station to submit complaint. At that time when he was taking bath in the pond, Jakob Hembram, Sukurmoni Hembram and others were also taking bath.
P.W. 1 Sundari Hembram is the wife of the victim. He stated that the appellant is the brother-in-law of her husband. The appellant had married her husband's elder sister. Her husband was murdered by the appellant on 7th/8th Sraban 4/5 years ago. On that day she had gone out to the field. When she was returning she heard the appellant had murdered her husband. She had seen that appellant go towards west with an axe. The appellant used to call her 'witch'. Over this there was alternation between the appellant and the victim. When she came she found that the appellant was lying dead on the kuli road.
In cross-examination, she stated that she was not present at the place of occurrence. She stated that she had gone to work one mile away from her house. On her way back she was informed that the appellant was murdered.
P.W. 2 Sukurmoni Hembram is a neighbour of the victim. She deposed that victim Sukram Hembram was murdered by the appellant. It was in the month of Sraban. On that day at about 5 p.m. Sukram was in her house. She heard hue and cry. She went out of the house and found that Sukram was lying in bleeding condition and the appellant fled away. In cross-examination she stated that she is the Bhagni Bou of Sukram. When the incident occurred she was in her house.
P.W. 3, Jacob Hembram, stated that his house is situated in front of the house of Sukram. Sukram was murdered by the appellant. When he was coming after bath he found the dead body of Sukram lying on the field. He heard from the villagers that Sukram was murdered by the appellant who fled away. Police came to their village and examined the dead body of Sukram. He signed on a paper (Exhibit 1). Police seized bloodstained earth, controlled earth and the back portion of a wooden axe under a seizure list. He signed on the seizure list (Exhibit
2). At the time of incident he was not in the house.
P.W. 4, Siman Hembram, deposed that he is a resident of village Madhuban. He knew Sukram Hembram. He was murdered 4/5 years bank in the month of Sraban. On the date of incident when he returning home he came to know that the victim was murdered by the appellant. He could not say anything about the incident. Police came tot he village and he signed on a paper (Exhibit 1/1).
P.W. 5, Sahadeb Murmu, is a co-villager of the village. He stated that the victim was murdered. Subsequently he heard that the victim had been murdered by the appellant. He found dead body of the victim lying on the road.
P.W. 6, Suklal Hembram, is another son of the victim. He stated that the victim was murdered by the appellant. He had gone for work. When he came back in the afternoon he found that the appellant was running with an axe towards west. He informed the police. Nepal is his brother. There was dispute between his father and the appellant. Sabitri, daughter of the victim, had fallen ill. The appellant blamed his father for witch who performed black magic on his daughter. Police came to the village and prepared inquest report over the dead body. He signed on the inquest report. Police seized wooden portion of an axe, some bloodstained earth under a seizure list. On the next date police arrested accused and recovered an axe from his possession which is seized under a seizure list. He put his signature thereon (Exhibit 4). Police seized the axe from the possession of the accused.
P.W. 7, Dr. Dipak Kr. Basak, held the post mortem report over the dead body of the victim and found the following injuries :
"1. 10″ x 4″ x 4″ sharp cut injury over the back of shoulder. The disorganised of right shoulder joint and fracture humerus.
2. 4″ x 1″ x 1″ sharp cut injury at the back of right deltoid region muscle cut.
3. 3″ x 3″ x 3″ sharp cut injury over the right side of the neck.
Vertebrae 5th cervical cut.
4. Another sharp cut injury 3″ x 3″ x 2″ over the right side of the neck.
5. 10″ x 8″ x 6″ sharp cut injury over the right side of the face cutting right side of the mandible. Trachea major portion of the larynx base of the tongue.
6. 8″ x 4″ x 4″ injury over the left parietal region of the skull with fracture skull.
7. 4″ long sharp cut injury on the left side of the neck.
8. 2″ x 1″ x 1″ sharp cut injury over the left shoulder.
9. Fractured skull left parietal, occipital region.
10. 2″ x 1″ x 1″ sharp cut injury levelled over the laterial chest wall."
The cause of death was due to effects of multiple injuries ante mortem and homicidal in nature.
P.W. 8, Sabitri Baskey is the daughter of the appellant who stated that the appellant has been accused of the murder of the victim.
P.W. 10 and 11 are the investigating officers in the instant case. P.W. 10 deposed that on 25.07.1999 he was in charge of Bandwan Police Station as the Officer in Charge was on leave. On receiving complaint from Nepal Hembram he stated the case. He drew up the formal first information report (Exhibit 6). He visited the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch map. He conducted the inquest over the dead body of the victim. He signed in the inquest report (Exhibit 1/3). He collected bloodstained earth and one wooden butt of an axe under a seizure list (Exhibit 2/2). He sent the dead body for post mortem. On 26.07.1999 he arrested the accused from Bandwan market when he was coming with an axe towards the P.S. He recorded the statement of the accused who pointed to him the axe by which he murdered Sukram Hembram. Thereafter he prepared a seizure list and seized the axe from the possession of the accused. The accused put his signature on the seizure list (Exhibit 4/1). He sent the axe for FSL examination. He was transferred from Bandwan Police Station on 05.11.1999.
P.W. 11 is the second investigating officer who collected the FSL report instead of seized axe and submitted charge sheet against the accused person.
P.W. 12 is the scribe of the first information report.
Having analyzed the aforesaid evidence, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no eyewitness to the murder of Sukram. However, the prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.W. 2 who was the wife of Jacob Hembram deposed that immediately prior to the incident the victim was in her house and upon hearing a commotion she came out and found the victim lying dead on the field beside the road and saw the appellant running away from spot with an axe in hand. Her evidence is corroborated by other prosecution witnesses who stated that soon after the incident they arrived at the spot and saw the appellant running away with an axe in hand.
The victim found lying with multiple incised injuries on his body and the appellant ran away from the spot with an axe in hand. The aforesaid circumstances form a part of the same transaction clearly connecting the appellant with the assault on the victim resulting in his death.
Motive of the crime is also proved by P.W. 1 and 9 who deposed that the appellant and the victim had bad relationship as the appellant had accused the victim of performing witchcraft causing illness to his daughter, Sabitri. Furthermore, axe was seized from the possession of the appellant and the serologist's report shows that it was stained with human blood.
These circumstances leave no doubt in my mind that due to previous enmity the appellant had struck multiple blows with an axe on the victim causing his death. Hearing his hue and cry prosecution witnesses came out and saw the appellant running away from the spot with an axe in hand. Subsequently the blood stained axe was seized from the possession of the appellant.
Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction and sentence of the appellant is, accordingly, upheld. The appeal is, thus, dismissed.
Period of detention suffered by the appellant during the investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against substantive sentence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Copy of judgement along with lower court records be sent down to the court below at once for necessary compliance.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)