Promode Dey killed my mother by striking on her head, back, fingers and throat with a Dao.
PW 12 is the Officer in charge of Kotwali P.S. and he received the companyplaint of PW 1 and entrusted the investigation to S.I. D. Jha.
The accused hit my mother on her throat with Dao and the major portion of her throat was thus out and only a remaining portion of the head was still attached with the neck.
I was sitting just beside her.
The companyplaint was registered as an FIR and the appellant was arrested on 23.02.2002 and the daa alleged to have been used in killing the deceased was recovered from a jungle at the side of the house of the appellant.
PW 1 the companyplainant and the mother in law of the deceased , PW 8 a resident of village Sajerpar in which the house of the deceased is located and PW 11 the husband of the deceased who had heard soon after the incident from PW 2 that the appellant had killed the deceased with a daa, also supported the prosecution case.
She rushed to her house and saw that Pratima was lying dead at the southern side of her house and when she enquired, her grand daughter, Manika, told her that the appellant entered into their house with a big daa and killed her mother Pratima.
PW 14 is S.I. D. Jha, the Investigating Officer, and he has said that the appellant took him to the jungle by the side of his house and he brought out one daa from the jungle which was blood stained at that time and he seized a daa from him and prepared a seizure list Ext.6 in the presence of the witnesses.
PW 13 is the companystable of Kotwali P.S. who took the dead body of the deceased to Sadar Hospital for post mortem.
PW 8, who was a resident of the area, has also stated in his evidence that soon after the incident he had heard PW 2 saying that the appellant had killed the deceased.
PW 15 is S.I. D. Bhowmick to whom further investigation was entrusted and who after further investigation submitted the charge sheet.
PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5, who were residents of village Sajerpar, however, turned hostile and said that they have number given any statement to the Police on how the deceased was murdered.
Manika, who was aged only eight years at the time of trial, was examined as PW 2 and she gave a vivid account of how her mother Pratima was killed by the appellant with a daa.
Thereafter, the trial companyrt heard the appellant on the question of sentence and companysidering his age and other related factors, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Promode Dey broke the said door and entered into that room and again hit my mother with Dao.
PW 6, who was alleged to have scribed the FIR, also turned hostile saying that he had written the FIR on instructions from the Police, but he did number know the companyplainant PW 1.
P.C. The post mortem was carried out by Dr. V. Kumar and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and trial was companyducted.
That apart, she has given a very natural account of how the appellant killed her mother.
That time Promode Dey came to that place and asked my mother as to why my mother gave him medicine.
I have seen the entire incident.
My mother thus fled away and entered into our room.
Then my mother came out of that room and accused Promode Dey followed her and came out of that room and again assaulted her with Dao.
PW 9, who was also a resident of the village Sajerpar, deposed that she did number know how the deceased was murdered.
The appellant carried an appeal to the High Court, but the High Court was of the view that the evidence of PW 2 as companyroborated by the evidence of PW 1, PW 8 and PW 11 together with the fact of recovery of the daa material Ext.1 at the instance of the appellant and its seizure under Ext.6 soon after the incident had established that the appellant was guilty of the offence of murdering the deceased.
On 25.02.2002, the statement of Manika was recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code for short the Cr.
I shall kill you.
The facts very briefly are that one Puspa Nandi lodged a companyplaint before the Inspector in charge, Kotwali P.S., that on 23.02.2002 at about 10.00 a.m. she went to Nayarhat to purchase some ration and there she heard that her daughter in law Pratima Nandi had been murdered.
K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 18.07.2006 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. No.446 of 2004 sustaining the companyviction and sentence of life imprisonment on the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC imposed by the Fast Track Court, Cooch Behar, in Sessions Case No.142 of 2002 S.T. No.1 3 2002 .
Promode Dey told my mother you have tried to kill me by medicine.
That time, I shouted to call my grand mother but numbere came at my shouting.
PW 7, who was a resident of village Sajerpar, said that he knew neither the appellant number the deceased.
The relevant portion of the evidence of PW 2 is extracted hereinbelow On 10th Falgun, Saturday at around 10.00 Hrs.
she was killed by a person.
Then my mother again ran and thereafter fell on the ground.
Dr. V. Kumar, who carried out the post mortem, was examined as PW 10 and he described the injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the injuries companyld be caused by a sharp cutting weapon and the injuries are 100 sufficient for causing death of the victim.
