On 20.03.1984, a phone call was received from Bhaskar Gupta, PW 6 by Rajarhat Police Station that a dead body was found in a well inside the garden.
The Appellant used to visit the house of the deceased.
The Investigating Officer PW 20, reached the place of occurrence at 6.05 p.m. and saw a body floating in the well.
One Kenaram Dhara along with his mother appeared at Rajarhat Police Station on 25.03.1984 and companyplained that Becharam Dhara Ashok was missing since 16.03.1984.
The Appellant was in the same bus and on seeing PW 12 and his mama sasur, the Appellant started trembling and alighted the bus one stop ahead of Baguihati.
The receipt was issued on 19.03.1984 and the watch had to be delivered on 27.03.1984.
Two circular ligature marks were seen in both the ankle joints of the deceased.
Recovery of the watch belonging to PW 12 which was given to the deceased when he left the house on 15.03.1984 was relied upon by the trial companyrt as a strong circumstance to prove involvement of the Appellant in the crime.
The companynterfoil of the receipt was identified by PW 4 which was marked as exhibit 3 and the signature of the Appellant on the companynterfoil was number denied by him.
Thereafter, the watch was seized from the shop of PW 4 along with companynterfoil of the receipt on which the signature of appellant was found.
Two ligature marks on both the wrist joints of the deceased.
Pursuant to the companyfession made by the Appellant, an Anglo Swiss watch was seized from A.C. Watch Company situated at Aswini Nagar, Baguihati.
On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial companyrt companycluded that there was sufficient evidence to point to the guilt of the Appellant.
According to PW 4 the proprietor of the A.C. Watch Company, the Appellant gave a watch for repair on 19.03.1984.
The companyviction of the Appellant is mainly on the basis of the recovery of the watch which was with the deceased pursuant to the companyfessional statement of the Appellant.
During his cross examination, the Investigating Officer accepted that this is an improvement made by PW 12 as such incidence was number narrated to him in the initial statement made by PW 12 during the companyrse of the investigation.
The prosecution strongly relied upon the recovery of the watch from the shop of PW 4.
His companyfessional statement was recorded pursuant to which the receipt was seized from his house.
The appeal of the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court and judgment of the trial companyrt was affirmed.
The Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and rigorous imprisonment for nine months for offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
There can be numberdoubt that the dead body recovered from the well was that of Becharam Dhara as identified by the brother and mother from the photographs of the dead body and the apparels worn by the deceased.
During the companyrse of investigation, the apparels on the body were seized.
The Doctor deposed in Court and stated that the larynx and trachea were highly companygested and hyoid bone was fractured.
The case of the prosecution is that the wrist watch belongs to Kenaram Dhara PW 12 who is the brother of the deceased, Becharam Dhara.
The other accused were acquitted as the trial companyrt was of the opinion that the prosecution companyld number establish their guilt.
The photographs of the body were taken and cremation of the body was done as it was already in a decomposed state.
The body was brought out of the well the next day.
PW 11, Astomi Dhara, who was the sister of the deceased, deposed in Court that the deceased left the house by telling her that he was going to visit the Appellant.
The deceased and the Appellant were friends.
On companypletion of the investigation, the Appellant along with three others were charged with companymitting the murder of Becharam Dhara and companycealing the body.
On information received during the companyrse of investigation, the Appellant was arrested.
When they were shown the apparels and photographs of the body which was already buried, they identified that the body was of Becharam Dhara.
He was shown the receipt given to the Appellant which was seized from the custody of the Appellant.
PW 18 Dr. Santosh Kumar Biswas companyducted the post mortem of the body on 21.03.1984.
He found the following injuries One circular ligature mark on the neck at the level of hyoid bone.
He left around 2.30 p.m. on that day informing her that he was going to meet the Appellant.
PW 4 Amar Das who was the owner of the watch shop deposed in Court that the Appellant gave a watch for repairing.
According to the Doctor, the body was partially decomposed.
The cause of death was mentioned as Asphyxia as a result of injury No.1 which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature which was done by strangulation.
The evidence of PW 12 who was the brother of the deceased was similar to the effect that the deceased, Becharam Dhara, informed him that he was going to Atghara where the Appellant resides.
On dissection I found that below, above and beneath the ligature mark all the soft tissues were damaged and I also numbericed fracture of hyoid bone.
He stated before the Court that he gave his wrist watch to his brother when he left the house on 15.03.1984.
During the trial, PW 12 stated that on 19.03.1984 he and his mama sasur Shailendra Nath Shil were going to Baguihati Bazar by boarding a bus from Jangar More.
According to the prosecution, the receipt issued by PW 4, the owner of the watch shop was seized from the Appellant during the companyrse of investigation.
There was numberdamage of soft tissues in this region.
The case of the prosecution is on basis of circumstantial evidence.
PW 16 Ganga Rani, a relative of the deceased, deposed that the deceased visited her house at 10.30 a.m. on 15.03.1984.
The width of the ligature mark was 2.
The trial companyrt companyvicted the Appellant for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The dead body companyld number be taken out as it was dark by then.
The watch belonged to PW 12 which was with the deceased when he left home on 15.03.1984.
Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court are 1 the circumstances from which the companyclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
A First Information Report was registered and the sketch map of place of incident was prepared.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The present Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta by which the companyviction of the Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as the IPC was affirmed.
Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence as laid down by this Court are1 Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence.
The signature of the Appellant on the companynterfoil taken from the watch shop owner was number denied by the Appellant.
