The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302, IPC against the appellant for murder of his mother and elder brother and the appellant pleaded number guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
Mr. Srinivasa Rao in his written companyplaint dated 1st September, 2001 alleged that he heard screaming sounds companying from the next door quarter and so he, along with his relatives and other neighbours went to quarter No.2 D/2 and found the dead body of Debasis, the brother of the appellant and his mother, Bithika in a precarious companydition with serious injuries on her person.
He seized one silver chain with lockets of Goddess Tara and God Shiva, and other articles like shil, numbera, blood stained mat, chappal, button etc under a seizure list prepared and signed by him marked as Exs.
The trial companyrt found him guilty for the double murder of his brother and mother and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC.
The appellant appealed against the judgment of the trial companyrt in the High Court pleading innocence, and submitted that there were numbereye witnesses to depose against the appellant and that he should be acquitted.
The present appeal is filed urging certain grounds and legal companytentions, praying to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and to reverse the companyviction and sentence passed by the companyrts below.
The P.W 12, the Investigating Officer, Mr. Mallick, the S.I. of Police attached to Kharagpur Police Station deposed that he found the dead body of Debasis, the elder brother of the accused in a pool of blood and was informed that his injured mother was sent to the hospital.
Against the judgment and order of the trial companyrt, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court pleading innocence and lack of evidence and prayed for reversal of the companyviction and sentence.
398 of 2003, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the verdict of the trial companyrt companyvicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in short IPC on the charge of double murder of his brother and mother and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.
The facts of the case are stated in brief.
2/2 and 3/1 .
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the verdict of the trial companyrt.
He further stated that he arrested the accused at Subhaspally on his way to his sisters house P.W 2, Rupali Sen and that he found some scratch marks and injuries on his body which was later examined by the doctor, P.W. 11, who opined that the injuries were caused due to scuffling with another person and companyld have been inflicted if the accused was an assailant and the victims tried to save themselves from his assault.
The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses which included A. Srinivas Rao and some of the people of the locality, P.W 2 Rupali Sen, the sister of the appellant and his deceased elder brother and daughter of his deceased mother, the doctor who companyducted the Post Mortem examination, the doctor who examined the appellant soon after his arrest by the Investigating Officer I.O and the I.O himself.
The trial companyrt reached this companyclusion, mainly on the oral testimony of P.W.2 Rupali Sen, sister of the appellant and on several circumstances which was gathered from both oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution.
The prosecution case giving birth to the sessions trial was that the appellant, on the night of September 1, 2001, had allegedly killed both his elder brother and his mother at their railway quarter No.2 D/2, Old Settlement, Kharagpur Town and this fact of the gruesome murder of both the victims came to light when an FIR was lodged by one A. Srinivas Rao who was also a Railways Employee and who used to reside in the quarter just beside the quarter of the victims.
The appellant had filed this appeal against the same and the matter has companye before us.
Legature marks on the neck may be caused to the assailant if the victim had dragged the assailant after pulling the chain which was put on by him at his neck.
Bithika was subsequently taken to the hospital for treatment but she succumbed to her injuries.
The appellant, Subhasis Mondal was charged with the murder of his elder brother, Debasis Mondal and his mother, Bithika Mondal at their house in Kharagpur town, based on the FIR filed by one Srinivas Rao who used to reside in the quarter beside the quarter of the victims.
The learned trial judge after companysidering the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, and after hearing the companytentions of both the appellant and the State finally came to the companyclusion that the appellant companying from Calcutta on 31st August, 2001 made his entry into the quarter of Debasis in the night of September 1, 2001 and finding his mother and brother defenceless, killed them both to take revenge since Debasis got employment on companypassionate ground on the death of his father and the appellant was deprived of an employment opportunity.
Gopala Gowda, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant Subhashish Mondal Bijoy, against the final judgment and order dated 29.09.2006, passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.
P.W. 8, the Medical Officer who examined the body of Debasis, the elder brother of the accused stated in his evidence that the injuries may be caused by incriminating substance such as numbera, which was recovered from the scene of the crime.
On getting this information, the police visited the place of occurrence and there, Mr. Rao presented his written companyplaint about the murder without any mention of the assailant as it was still unknown.
