JUDGMENT
1. Cr. Appeal No. 254 of 1989 is by Nawal Kishore Mandal @ Guruwar Mandal and Cr Appeal No. 252 of 1989 is by Malti Mandalain @ Rasia @ Urmila Devi, The above two appellants were arrayed as A-1 and A-2 before the Sessions Judge, Dumka. They were charged and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC for which each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The above two appeals have therefore, been filed by the aforesaid appellants challenging their conviction and sentence.
2. The above two appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment as they arise out of one Sessions Case.
3. The facts necessary to dispose of these appeals can be summarized as follows :
The deceased, Maya Kumari Mandalain is the daughter of PW 6 Shyamlal Mandal and sister of PW 5 Nimichand Mandal. The deceased was given in marriage to appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal (in Cr. Appeal No. 254/89} and, thereafter, both of them were living happily. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal wanted his wife to bring a radio and a wrist watch, but PW 6, her father, could not buy the same to give it to Nawal Kishore Mandal (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 254/89). Further case of the prosecution is that appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal was having illicit relationship with appellant Malti Mandalain (in Cr. Appeal No. 252/89) and that on account of the above fact, the deceased was murdered by appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal by strangulation.
4. PW 6, the father of the deceased, received information about the death of his daughter Maya Kumari at about 6-7.00 a.m. on 4th of June, 1987. On receiving the said information, PW 6 went to the village of his daughter and found her dead. Thereafter, the complaint was given which was taken up for investigation by the Police Officer (PW 7). PW 7 on taking up the investigation of the crime, conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the same to the hospital for post-mortem examination.
5. On receipt of the dead body, PW 2 Dr. N.N. Das conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Maya Kumari and he found the following injuries :
(i) Externally there was a deep wide chain like ligature mark around the neck 2.5″ deep and 5″ wide which started in front of neck from a point just below the chin and above the level of larynx and passed backward and upward on both side in a bit oblique manner and ended on both sides just below the level of occiput leaving a gap of about 2.5″ between the two posterior ends of the ligature.
(ii) Eyes were very much swollen, closed and bluish coloured and blood coming out of nostrils.
(iii) Mouth partially opened, blood tinged, salvia coming out of mouth.
(iv) Internally on dissecting the groove of the ligature mark the base was hard, pale and red margins.
The doctor issued Ext. 2, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that the death was on account of asphvxia due to compression on the neck.
6. After the investigation final report was filed against both the appellants.
7. The appellants denied the incriminating circumstances when they were questioned under Section 313, Cr PC.
8. The learned counsel, appearing for both the appellants in the above two appeals, strongly contends that the Trial Judge erred in, convicting the appellants without any iota of evidence. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution could not even succeed in establishing the cause of death of the deceased, Maya Kumari, beyond all reasonable doubt and that in absence of any legal evidence, the appellants are entitled to acquittal.
9. We have heard Mr. V.K. Prasad. learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
10. The prosecution before the trial Court wanted to establish that the deceased Maya Kumari died on account of homicidal violence. To prove the said fact, it examined PW 2, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. The doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body also gave evidence in Court. In the Cross-examination he admitted that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased could also be on account of suicide, as according to him. the ligature mark found on the neck was horizontal and not circular. Therefore, it is clear that the medical evidence is not conclusive as to the cause of death of the deceased, Maya Kumari; whether it was on account of homicidal violence or due to suicide.
11. We have now to consider whether there is any other evidence, at least, to infer that it is a case of homicidal violence. But we find none. The case of the prosecution is that appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal (in Cr. Appeal No. 254/89) was demanding radio and wristwatch and that PW 6 could not afford to buy it. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant Malti Mandalain (in Cr. Appeal No. 252 of 1989), was having illicit relationship with appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal (in Cr. Appeal No. 254 of 1989). PW 5, the brother of the deceased, was examined to speak about that but he could not give any evidence on the above aspect of the illicit relationship between appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal and Malti Mandalain, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 252 of 1989. The trial Court, on the evidence adduced before it, gave findings to the effect that the prosecution did not succeed in establishing that appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal was demanding radio and wrist-watch and that it also could not succeed in establishing that appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal (in Cr. Appeal No. 254 of 1989) and appellant Malti Mandalain (in Cr, Appeal No. 252 of 1989) were having illicit relationship with each other.
12. On going through the materials, we find that there is absolutely no evidence to come to a conclusion that the appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal was demanding radio and wrist watch and that there was illicit relationship between him and appellant Malti Mandalain (In Cr. Appeal No. 252 of 1989). The prosecution, therefore, failed to establish any motive for the appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal to cause the death of his wife Maya Kumari. In this background, we cannot but hold that the prosecution did not lead any evidence, even to probablise the theory that the deceased was murdered either by appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal or by both of the appellants. The only evidence is the evidence of PW 6 Shyamlal Mandal and his evidence, at best will show that he received information about the death of his daughter on 4th June, 1987 and thereafter on reaching the village he gave a complaint. In the complaint also, he did not give any specific allegation against any of the accused. In the Court also, he did not give evidence to show that either the appellant Nawal Kishore Mandal (in Cr. Appeal No. 254 of 1989) or the appellant Malti Mandalain (In Cr. Appeal No. 252 of 1989) could have caused the murder of the deceased Maya Kumari. In fact, the doctor who conducted autopsy also found that the death could have been on account of suicide also. In the above background and in the absence of any evidence, we find that the trial Court has committed error on the face of record in convicting the appellants.
13. We, therefore, allow both the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds.