Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. With the publication of the photograph in the newspaper on the 3rd August, 1960, the matter moved swiftly towards identification. On seeing the photograph in the 'Swadhinata' members of Sadhana's family at 105, Dum Dum Road, Seal Colony had no doubt in their mind that this was the body of Sadhana. They had made some unsuccessful searches for Sadhana in the meantime but to no effect. On the 28th July, within four days after Sadhana left for the last time Shefali went in search for her to Rahara in Kharda. She first visited her eldest sister Chameli who lived with her husband. From there she proceed ed to the house of Prangopal Banerjee, the father of the appellant Arun. There she found appellant Arun but not Sadhana. The prosecution case is that appellant Arun pleaded ignorance about the whereabouts of Sadhana and offered to go with her in search for Sadhana. Thereupon Shefali and the appellant Arun went to Konnagar, the residence of Sadhana's eldest brother Himangshu. Sadhana was not found there. Then Shefali and Arun returned next morning to 105, Dum Dum Road Seat Colony but Arun left within a few minutes of his stay. On the 1st August, 1960, two General Diary entries, in the nature of missing reports must be noticed. The first in point of time is the one by the appellant Arun at about 9.10 a.m. This is Exhibit 15-G. D. entry No. 23 dated 1st August, 1960, at Dum Dum Police. Station. In this is recorded:

"Arun Kumar Banerjee, son of Shri Pran Gopal Banerjee of 105, Dum Dum Road, Sil Colony and of Rahara, Khardah C/o. Pran Gopal Banerjee came to P. S. and reported that his wife of the following description has gone away from his home on last Thursday from Sil Colony."

Then follows the name of Sadhana, age given is 19 years, complexion as black, built as thin and wearing as unknown. The information was sent to the Missing Squad, Lalbazar. From this it will appear that the appellant Arun lodged that information stating there that Sadhana had .gone away from his home on the 28th July, 1960, from Seal Colony at 105, Dum Dum Road. About three hours at about 12 noon the father of Sadhana, Kalish Chandra Bose, lodged the information which is marked as Exhibit 16 as General Diary entry No. 37 dated 1st August, 1960 of Dum Dum P. S. In that entry it is recorded:

30. The fourth incriminating circumstance against appellant Arun is the General Diary entry which he made on the 1st August, 1960 at Dum Dum police station and to which reference has just now been made. The contents of this entry has been quoted elsewhere in the judgment. It will appear from such contents that Arun was asserting that his wife had gone away "from 'his' home" and that on "last Thursday from Sil Colony". The "last Thursday" there mentioned is 28th My, 1960. Arun therefore is asserting that Sadhana was alive until the 28th, while in fact she had been killed on the night of the 24th July, 1960. If Sadhana had gone away from Arun's house on the 28th July, 1960 and had not returned then it is inexplicable how husband Arun was doing nothing on the 29th, 30th and 31st July, 1960 to find out the wife and why he did not make the missing report to the police earlier than the 1st August, 1960. An attempt to explain this is made by suggesting that he was moving with Shefali to find her out. But this attempt cannot succeed for the simple reason that Sadhana was not alive on the 28th July, 1960. This false date the 28th July, 1960 is consistent only with the circumstance of Arun's guilt and complicity in the crime and not with his innocence. With a view to get out of this clinching circumstance Mr. Dutta contends that this entry by Arun which is General Diary Entry No. 23 dated 1st August, 1960 at Dum Dum police station marked exhibit 15 in the record is inadmissible evidence on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of , where at page 505 it was observed:

Why should he make the statement on the 1st August, 1960 that Sadhana left his home on the 28th July, 1960 when Sadhana had already died on the 24th July, 1960. Having failed to invoke that Supreme Court decision in his favour Mr. Dutta fell back upon an earlier Supreme Court decision in the case of Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh , where it is laid down that a first information report cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. But that decision is of little help to Mr. Dutta because this General Diary entry in this case is not the First Information Report at all but is only a missing information. A first information report has to answer certain tests, namely, that it must relate to a cognizable offence. A report that some body is missing is not an information relating to the com mission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then also it has to be sign ed by the person giving it. This General Diary Entry is not signed by appellant Arun. This argument fails to notice that every report to the police is not a first information report. See the observation in the case of Moni Mohon Gose v. Emperor . Mr. Dutta in fact could not bring to our notice or cite any case which has decided that a missing information such as is contained in this particular General Diary entry cannot be used as a circumstance proving the conduct of the accused. Nor do we consider that this exhibit is at all hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not a statement made to a police officer in course of investigation nor is it signed by the person making it.