Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. As the task of preliminary investigation was entrusted to him after the registration of General Diary Entry no. 603, the I.O. [P.W.13] proceeded to the place of occurrence [P.O.] with the accused. On reaching of P.O., that is, the house of the deceased, the I.O. [P.W.13] stated to have recorded the statements the available witnesses available at the P.O. under Section 161, CrPC. The I.O. [P.W.13] also drew up a Sketch Map of the P.O. [Ext.-5]; and seized a blood stained dao which was lying by the side of the deadbody, vide a Seizure List [Ext.-4] on 30.08.2017 in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the deadbody of Dharmeswari Kandha was brought to the Police Station for post-mortem examination. Prior to sending the deadbody for post-mortem examination, the I.O. [P.W.13] got the inquest proceeding conducted on the deadbody of the deceased by the Executive Magistrate, Udalguri at around 09-30 a.m. on 30.08.2017 and the Executive Magistrate, Udalguri prepared an Inquest Report [Ext.-2] recording his findings therein. After the inquest proceeding, the deadbody of Dharmeswari Kandha was forwarded to the Udalguri Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination vide a Deadbody Challan at around 01-00 p.m. on 30.08.2017. The post-mortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased was performed at Udalguri Civil Hospital and in course of time, the Autopsy Doctor, P.W.3 prepared a Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report [Ext.-3] recording his findings therein.

18.4. P.W.7, Dadhiram Deka deposed that on the date of the incident, that is, 30.08.2017, when he was in his residence, he was apprised by his brother, Binoy Deka [P.W.1] at around 09-00 a.m. that one telephone call from one Line Chawkidar of Bhutiachang Tea Estate was received whereby it was informed that an incident had taken place in the house of their sister. He [P.W.7] along with his brother, P.W.1 proceeded immediately to the house of their sister at Bhutiachang Tea Estate. P.W.7 deposed that after reaching there, they saw that their sister was lying dead on the bed. By the time they reached their sister's house, many persons from the neighbourhood including Police personnel had already gathered there. He [P.W.7] came to know that the accused committed the murder of his mother by cutting her neck. They could not find the accused as he had voluntarily surrendered before the Police after commission of the murder. P.W.7 further stated that inquest on the deadbody of his sister was conducted in his presence. Thereafter, the deadbody was taken to Udalguri Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination. In cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that his statement under Section 161, CrPC was not recorded by Police. It was the persons from the neighbourhood who gathered at the place of occurrence, told them that the accused after committing the murder of his mother surrendered before the Police. He did not, however, remember the name of the person who told him about the killing of his deceased sister.

20.5. P.W.12, Pradip Munda also used to know the deceased and the accused. P.W.12 deposed to the effect that at around 07-00 p.m. in the night previous to the date of the incident, the accused came to his house and played Ludo game with him. Thereafter, the accused had his meal along with him. When he [P.W.12] felt sleepy at around 09-00 p.m., he [P.W.12] asked the accused to go back to his home. Accordingly, the accused left for his Page No.# 17/36 home, which was located adjacent to the house of P.W.12. P.W.12 also stated that in the morning on the next day, he heard commotion occurring in front of the house of the accused at around 08-30 a.m. Hearing noise, he [P.W.12] came out of his home and saw gathering of people in the house of the accused. He [P.W.12] also then proceeded for the house of the accused. Going there, he saw the deadbody of the mother of the accused lying on the bed with deep cut mark injuries on her neck with blood oozing out from the injury. P.W.12 further stated that he came to know that the accused after killing his mother, surrendered himself before the Police. Police personnel coming to the place of occurrence, took away the deadbody for post-mortem examination. In cross-examination, P.W.12 stated that his house from the house of the accused was intervened by another house. He further stated that on the previous night of the incident, he did not hear any halla in the house of the accused.

20.7. From the testimonies of the above prosecution witnesses - P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12 & P.W.14, it is evident that none of them had witnessed the incident which resulted into the death of the deceased. On evaluation of their testimonies, it has emerged that it was P.W.5, Gola Munda who made a visit to the house of the deceased, Line Quarter no. 332 first in point of time in the morning hours of the date of the incident after he was asked to go there by the Line In-Charge of Bhutiachang Tea Estate after receiving an information from Panery Police Station. When P.W.5 went alone to Line Quarter no. 332, he saw the deadbody of Dharmeswari Kandha lying on the bed with cut mark injuries on her neck and a bloodstained dao lying by the side of the deadbody. This witness, P.W.5 - Gola Munda again went the place of occurrence, Line Quarter no. 332 for the second time along with few of the afore-mentioned witnesses. When P.W.5 went to the place of occurrence for Page No.# 18/36 the second time he found the presence of Police personnel there. Like P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were witnesses to the Seizure List, Ext.-4 whereby the bloodstained dao lying by the side of the deadbody was seized by the Police personnel. P.W.5 and P.W.6 also identified the seized dao as Mat. Ext.-1. From the testimonies of the afore-mentioned witnesses, it has emerged that they had the knowledge that the accused had, in the meantime, appeared in the Police Station. Their evidence to the effect that they had learnt that the accused had appeared in the Police Station after killing his mother by inflicting dao blow on her person was only hearsay evidence. Their visits to the house of the deceased were subsequent to the death of the deceased and none of them had deposed as regards the time of commission and manner of committing the murder. From a testimony of P.W.11, Sanika Kheria it is noticed that the deceased visited the house of P.W.11 on the night previous to the date of the incident to tell him [P.W.11] that the deceased had a quarrel with the accused and she was threatened by the accused. P.W.11 testified that when the deceased disclosed those facts to him, his other family members were also present. From the testimony of P.W.12, Pradip Munda, it is found that in between 07-30 p.m. and 09-00 p.m. on the previous night to the incident the accused was present in the house of P.W.12 and during that period of stay, the accused played ludo game with him and had his meal with the members of the family of P.W.12. When accused was asked by P.W.12 at around 09-00 p.m. to go home, the accused left the house of P.W.12. Neither P.W.11 had testified specifically that after leaving his house the deceased had returned to her house for the night nor P.W.12 had testified specifically that after leaving his house the accused had returned to his house at any time after leaving his [P.W.12's] house after 09-00 p.m. on the previous night. From P.W.11, it has only emerged that the deceased and the accused used to stay in the same house. But it has not emerged with any certainty that in the night intervening 29.08.2017 and 30.08.2017, the deceased and the accused were staying together in the same house.