Suranjan Roy v. The State
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SUBRATA TALUKDAR AND HON'BLE JUSTICE RABINDRANATH SAMANTA CRA No. 2 of 2022 Suranjan Roy ... Appellant
Versus
The State ... Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind For the State :Mr. Salim Mohammed Heard on : November 16, 2022 Judgment on : November 24, 2022 RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, J.
This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2019 arising out of Sessions case No. 10 of 2018. By the judgement, the appellant Suranjan Roy was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. To put briefly, the prosecution case is as follows:-
On 11th April, 2018 in the morning constable D. Satya Narayan of Diglipur Police Station while discharging his official duties had been to R.K.Gram village. At about 09:40 AM, a few villagers seeing him in uniform informed him that a woman was stabbed with knife in a room of an under construction house of one Shyam Sunder Gain. He rushed to the place and saw that a lady namely Kanika Roy wearing a pink saree and red blouse was lying dead in a pool of blood. Hoping that the lady was alive, a person namely Shankajit Gain with the help of some other persons took her to Diglipur Hospital. On the spot, he saw that a man with blood on his white shirt and hands was tied by a rope by some workers working at the under construction house. On interrogation, it revealed that the man killed his wife Kanika with a knife.
After information was communicated to the Police Station over phone the Station House Officer of Diglipur Police Station came to the spot with a Police team and a Photographer. The Station House Officer recorded his statement relating to the incident. Meanwhile, information was received that the attending doctor declared Kanika Roy as brought dead. He complained that the appellant Suranjan Roy (hereinafter be referred to as the accused) killed his wife Kanika by hitting her with a knife. The statement of the aforesaid Police official D. Satya Narayan recorded by the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station was treated as an FIR and on the basis of the FIR, one Diglipur PS Case No.
2018 under Section 302, IPC was registered against the accused for investigation. The accused Suranjan Roy who was intercepted at the place of occurrence was arrested by the Investigating Officer and he was forwarded him to the concerned court. During the Course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and seized some articles under seizure lists. During the investigation, he examined the available witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded their statement. On the prayer of the Investigating Officer, statement of witnesses namely Shankhajit Gain and Swapan Das were recorded by a learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer collected the inquest report and Post Mortem Examination report over the dead body of the deceased. After collection of the available materials/evidence the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
Since the offence was triable by the Court of Session, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder committed the case to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mayabunder for trail.
Charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial commenced.
To bring home the charge the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The prosecution relied on some documents which were marked as exhibits 1 to 12. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the defence.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on consideration of the evidence on record the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and imposed the sentence as indicated above.
The trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses on the part of the accused and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure show that the accused denied the prosecution-allegations and pleaded innocence.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that none of the prosecution witnesses has directly indicted the accused for causing the death of the deceased. None of the witnesses has deposed about the role played by the accused to commit the offence. Learned counsel argues if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is assessed in proper perspective, it will reveal that the accused has been convicted on suspicion and not on proper proof. Learned counsel argues that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the accused to commit the offence. In such contest, learned counsel argues
that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the state submits that the accused was intercepted with blood on his hand and wearing apparel stained with blood. Learned counsel further submits if evidence of the prosecution witnesses is considered as a whole an overwhelming and credible circumstances emerge that it was the accused who murdered his wife.
Since this appeal is the first appeal, we have scrutinized the evidence on record to consider whether the conviction recorded by the learned Trial judge is sustainable. As stated above, the prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the first information report made by Constable D. Satya Narayan who has been examined as PW 7. It is in his evidence that on 11th April, 2018 at about 9:30 AM he was going towards R.K.Gram on duty. Some labourers working at an under construction building of Shyam Sunder Gain called him by saying that one person stabbed a lady with knife. After hurriedly going to the spot he found that one lady was lying on the ground in a pool of blood. He found that the assailant was apprehended and tied by rope by the labourers. He sent the injured lady namely Kanika Roy to Community Health Centre, Diglipur. He informed the matter to Diglipur Police Station over his mobile phone. Thereafter, SHO of the Police Station along
with other Police Officials and a photographer came to the spot. Photograph of the place of occurrence was taken by the photographer. Inspector Mahesh Yadav, SHO, Diglipur Police Station recorded his statement and took his signature on the statement. This witness identified the accused Suranjan Roy as the assailant whom he saw at the spot apprehended and tied by a rope.
As stated above, on the basis of the statement of PW 7 the First Information Report was registered for investigation. It is evident from the evidence of the PW 7 that after some labourers informed him that a man stabbed his wife with a knife, he rushed to the spot and found the lady injured and the accused Suranjan Roy was intercepted by the labourers and tied by a rope.
As delineated by the prosecution, a quarrel took place between the deceased Kanika Roy and the accused Suranjan Roy in a room of under construction house of Shyam Sunder Gain. Amid the quarrel, the accused stabbed his wife Kanika with a knife. Seeing and sensing the incident some of the labourers who were working at the under construction house gathered there and intercepted the accused. Some people took the deceased to the nearby hospital where she was declared brought dead.
Amongst the witnesses who either saw the incident or informed of the incident with spontaneity are the labourers who
were working at the said under construction house or at a place just adjacent to his house.
As we find, PW 6 Sushil Biswas, PW 8 Swapan Das and PW 10 Atul Mondal at the time of the incident were working at the under construction house of Shyam Sunder Gain. PW 6, Sushil Biswas in his evidence testifies that about one year ago he was working as a labourer at an under construction house of Shyam Sunder Gain. At that time Kanika was also working there as labourer. On the day of incident at about 9:00 A.M. he took his meal and thereafter went to the first floor for water curing. Water pipe was disconnected. He came down from first floor and went to a place of about 250 cubic away to connect pipe with the water pipe line. At that time he heard hue and cry and rushed towards the under construction house. Reaching at the ground floor of the house he found that Kanika was lying on earth with bleeding injury on her person and seven/eight persons were standing there. He saw that the accused Suranjan Roy was tied with pillar and there were blood stains on his shirt.
PW 8, Swapan Das, another labourer, deposes that 13-14 months ago at 9/9:30 A.M. he after taking breakfast was engaged in his work. At that time he heard hue and cry. Shankhajit Gain, S/o Shyam Sunder Gain came there. He also went there and saw Kanika Roy, wife of Suranjan Roy was lying on earth with blood injury on her person in a room of under
construction house of Shyam Sunder Gain and a knife was also lying beside her body. Shankhajit Gain told the labourers to apprehend the assailant and tie him by a rope. Suranjan Roy was apprehended and tied by a rope. Police were informed about the incident. Police sent Kanika to Community Health Centre, Diglipur. Shankhajit Gain and one labourer Sushil took Kanika to Community Health Centre, Diglipur.
PW 10, Atul Mondal, a labourer says in his evidence that 14-15 months ago he was working in an under construction building of Gouri Shankar Das situated adjacent to the under construction building of Shyam Sunder Gain. Swapan Das, a labourer working in the building of Shyam Sunder Gain rushed to him and told that fighting was going on in the building of Shyam Sunder Gain and asked him to go there. He along with some other labourers who were working there went to the building and saw that one lady was lying in a pool of blood and the accused identified as Suranjan Roy was assaulting the lady with a lathi. He pushed the accused and asked the labourers to apprehend the accused and tie him. There were blood stains on the shirt and hands of the accused. The accused was apprehended and tied and thereafter the incident was informed to Police. Police came there and shifted the injured lady to hospital. The injured lady was working in the under construction building of Shyam Sunder Gain.
The evidence of PW 6 Sushil Biswas and PW 8 Swapan Das who were working at the under construction house of Shyam Sunder Gain reveal that after hearing an alarm they rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that the deceased Kanika Roy was lying injured and the accused was beside her with stains of blood on his person. They intercepted the accused and tied him by a rope. PW 10 Atul Mondal who was working at an under construction building just adjacent to the aforesaid under construction building also testifies that after hearing a fight going on in the building of Shyan Sunder Gain he went there and saw that the lady Kanika was lying in a pool of blood and the accused was assaulting her with a lathi. He pushed the accused and asked the other labourers to apprehend and tie him. There were blood stains on the shirt and hands of the accused. He says that the deceased was working in the under construction building of Shyam Sunder Gain.
If we look at the evidence of PW 9 Smti. Maya Rani Kirtania, grandmother (Mother's Mother), it transpires that her granddaughter Kanika Roy was working as labourer at the under construction house of Shyam Sunder Gain staying with her at her house at village R.K.Gram. Someone informed her that Kanika was murdered by Suranjan Roy and she was shifted to Community Health Centre, Diglipur.
From the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it transpires that
the residence of the accused is at village Nabagram under Diglipur Police Station. As it appears from the evidence of PW 10 Atul Mondal and the evidence of PW 9 Maya Rani Kirtania, the deceased Kanika Roy was working at the under construction house of Shyam Sunder Gain staying at her grandmother's house at village R.K.Gram.
It may be noted here that the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses as excerpted above remain unshaken in cross examination.
If the evidence of PW 10 Atul Mondal and PW 9 Maya Rani Kirtania are taken together and analysed, this fact comes out that at the time of the incident the accused who happened to be husband of the deceased was at the place of occurrence coming from his residence at village Nabagram or from some other place. As PW 10 deposes, a free fight took place between the deceased and the accused. All the witnesses as above have testified in similar tune that after they went to the place of occurrence hurriedly listening hue and cry they saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and the accused was standing beside her with stains of blood on his wearing apparel. In such context, the evidence of some other witnesses examined by the prosecution may be referred in this regard.
PW 3 Shyamal Bhowmick who at the time of the occurrence was the Panchayat Pradhan of village R.K. Gram deposes that about one year and two months ago at about 10:15
A.M. he got an information that a murder took place at an under construction house of Shyam Sunder Gain. He went there and saw that some villagers and police personnel were present there and one person was standing there having his hands tied behind his back and villagers told him that the man who has been identified as accused in Court committed murder of his wife.
PW 5 Shankhajit Gain, son of Shyam Sunder Gain in his evidence states that the incident took place on 11th April, 2018 between 9.30 AM to 10.00 AM at the under construction house of his father at R.K. Gram. When he was milking cow, he heard a scream. He rushed to the site of under construction house and saw that Kanika Roy was lying on the earth with bleeding injuries on her person and one knife was lying beside her. One person was standing beside the injured Kanika having blood stains on his shirt. He tried to call police but he could not connect the number. He came to the main road and found two police persons were present there. He told them about the incident and the police persons came to the spot. He along with Sushil Biswas took the injured Kanika to Community Health Centre, Diglipur by an auto rickshaw. He identified the accused in Court to be the person who stood there having blood stains on his wearing apparels. The evidence of PW 3 Shyamal Bhowmick and PW 5 Shankhajit Biswas lend credence to the evidence of said labourers that while the deceased was lying in a
pool of blood at the aforesaid under construction house, then the accused was found beside her having blood stain on his hands and wearing apparels. It appears from the evidence on record that a knife which was seized under proper seizure list and duly proved by the seizure witnesses was found lying at the place of occurrence.
Evidence as discussed above clearly demonstrate that at the time of the incident the deceased and the accused were seen together and the labourers who sensed the incident rushed there and intercepted the accused. In such factual matrix burden lies upon the accused to prove who is the assailant who caused the death of the deceased.
True, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to establish the motive of the accused to murder his wife. But, as found above, the deceased was working at the aforesaid under construction house staying with her grandmother at village R.K. Gram while the accused was staying at Nabagram. The arrival of the accused at the place of occurrence and the free fight between them strongly suggest that there might have some marital discord or differences between them and this marital discord of differences reached to such an extent that the accused took the penultimate step to end the life of his wife. It is a trite proposition of law that where independent testimony is available to prove the murder charge against the accused the question of motive becomes more or less academic.
From the Post Mortem Examination report (Exhibit-9) duly proved by PW 12 Doctor Nicolas it is evident that the Autopsy Surgeon has opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhagic shock caused by multiple stab injuries on the person of deceased Kanika Roy. This opinion of doctor corroborates the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and the overwhelming circumstances as depicted above as to causing death of the deceased by the accused. Therefore, the submission as advance by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenging the sustainability of the conviction is not acceptable to us.
In the absence of any other defense put forward on the part of the accused that it was not he but someone caused the death of the deceased, we, placing reliance on the evidences as discussed above unhesitatingly come to this inference that the learned Trial Judge rightly convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the judgement and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge.
In the result, the appeal merits dismissal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on contest. The judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge is hereby confirmed. No order as to cost.
Send down the LCR to the learned Court below along with the copy of this judgement.
Urgent Xerox certified copy this judgement be supplied to the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
I Agree.
(SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) (RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, J.)