A decapitated body was found lying in the Chandmuni Tea Estate near Himachal Behar Abasan Project at 1315 hours on 03.02.2004.
On the basis of a written companyplaint made by Bhupendra Nath Singh PW 12 , the investigation companymenced and the Appellant along with Hira Routh and Khogesh Bansfore were arrested.
It was found companycealed with soil and dry leaves in a garden drain.
The weapon used for the companymission of offence was also recovered on the basis of the statement and disclosure made by the accused persons from a companycealed place on 08.02.2004.
It was approximately 13 inches in length with a wooden butt and was recovered as per the statement and information of the accused on 08.02.2004.
The Appellant and the other accused Hira Routh and Khogesh Bansfore challenged their companyviction and sentence by filing an Appeal before the High Court of Calcutta.
The Trial Court relied upon the testimonies of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 who are the family members of the deceased Sambhu Mallick in its detailed discussion of oral evidence.
The post mortem report Exh.
The Trial Court held that the chain of circumstances was clearly established by clinching evidence which proved that the accused persons had companymitted the offence.
PW 4 and PW 5 are the sister and mother of the deceased respectively who companyroborated the evidence of PW 3.
The Appellant took the cycle of deceased Sambhu Mallick and carried him on the cycle.
The body and the head of the deceased were identified by his relatives.
The other two accused, Hira Routh and Khogesh Bansfore, were acquitted of all the charges.
PW 3, the wife of the deceased deposed that her husband was a sweeper by profession and at about 0200 pm on 02.02.2004 the three accused persons and the father of Dilip Mallick came to their house and asked the deceased to accompany them for cleaning a safety tank.
During the companyrse of investigation the statements of accused persons were recorded on 04.02.2004.
It is clear that the accused who was with the deceased on the earlier day did number give a proper answer to PW 3 and asked her to go to the Matigara Police Station which indicates that he was suggesting to PW 3 to companyplain to the police.
P.C. the accused denied any knowledge of the crime and alleged false implication.
The three circumstances relied upon by the High Court are that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, that the accused attempted to mislead PW 3 regarding the whereabouts of the deceased and that the accused did number offer any explanation about the events of 02.02.2004.
It was identified to be that of her husband by her mother in law and sister in law from his wearing apparel.
After a detailed companysideration of the entire evidence on record, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Siliguri found all the accused persons guilty of companymitting an offence under Section 302/201/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life.
The post mortem over the beheaded body and the cut head was companyducted by Dr. U.B. Ray Chaudhary PW 10 at North Bengal Medical College and Hospital.
The decapitated body and the cut head were sent for post mortem to the North Bengal Medical College and Hospital and the seized articles along with wearing apparel of the deceased were sent to the R.F.S.L., Jalpaiguri.
On 04.02.2004 she came to know about a beheaded body near Chandmuni Tea Estate area.
In the examination under Section 313 Cr.
She went to the house of the Appellant and was informed by the Appellants father that her husband and the Appellant went to clean a safety tank.
The deceased did number return home that night.
Charges under Sections 302/201/34 IPC were framed against all the three accused persons who pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The High Court held that there were three circumstances against the Appellant.
As the deceased did number return home, PW 3 started searching for him in the evening.
PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 who are the family members of the deceased were companysistent in their testimonies that the deceased and accused were last seen together at around 0200 pm on 02.02.2004.
PW 3 deposed that she went to the Police Station but did number find him there.
PW 3 gave evidence to the effect that the accused was number found in his house in the evening on 02.02.2004 when she went to enquire about her missing husband.
The accused led the police to Chandmuni Tea Estate area where the cut head was found wrapped with the wearing apparel of the deceased Sambhu Mallick son of late Pandi Mallick of Kuli Para, Siliguri.
She met the Appellant on the next day morning and enquired about her husband.
There is a burden on the accused to give an explanation about what happened after they left the house of the deceased.
PW 14 was the witness to the seizure list marked as Exh.17 in respect of recovery of an iron made Khukri used in the crime.
The Appellant asked her to go to Matigara Police Station.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 imposes an obligation on the accused to explain as to what happened after they were last seen together.
It was stated in the post mortem report that proximal and distal part of the neck fitted snugly with each other and that the head and the rest of the body belonged to the same individual.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. This Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 22.03.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2005 by which the companyviction of the Appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Siliguri in Sessions Trial No.03/04 dated 11.02.2005 was companyfirmed.
She also stated that when she met the accused on the next day morning, the accused misled her by saying that she should go to Matigara Police Station in search of her husband.
11 which was issued by PW 10 shows that there were eight stab injuries on the chest, stomach and other vital parts of the body.
