In the companyplaint, the companyplainant disclosed that his relations with his brother Kashinath i.e. the appellant were strained on account of property dispute.
On hearing her cries, the companyplainant and members of his family rushed to the upper floor.
He found her gamchha beneath her neck.
One key each of the said padlock was retained by the companyplainant and his brother.
He found deceased Pampa lying unconscious on her back on the floor of her room.
There are two rooms on the first floor of the said house.
He also found marks of violence on her neck.
He further stated that on a few occasions, quarrels had taken place between the appellant and his wife and daughters over domestic affairs and the appellant had threatened them of dire companysequences.
After companypletion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly companyvicted the appellant as aforesaid.
After departure of Sampa, the entrance gate was closed by putting padlock.
PW 1 Tarak added that his relations with the appellant were strained on account of property dispute.
He found that the gate was locked.
The ground floor premises were enclosed by iron grills.
The eldest daughter of the companyplainant Pampa was alone in her room on the first floor.
The neighbours of the companyplainant also came to the place of occurrence.
On the basis of the said written companyplaint, police registered a case under sections 376 and 302 of the IPC against the appellant and, after companypletion of investigation, the appellant came to be charged as aforesaid.
His wife had gone to her parents house.
On hearing their cries, the appellant came out of his room.
Sampa then straight away went to her room on the first floor.
Since at the relevant time, Pampa and the appellant were the only occupants of the first floor and since the exit doors of the house were locked from inside, the companyplainant firmly believed that the heinous crime of murder and rape had been companymitted only by the appellant.
At about 2.45 a.m., Sampa returned from the video show.
She saw her elder sister Pampa lying dead in a naked companydition on the floor.
He claimed to be tried.
There were numberclothes on the lower part of her person.
PW 18 Sagarika Mondal, the mother of the companyplainant opened the south eastern gate.
The appellant has also been companyvicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ , in default to suffer RI for two years.
At that time, the appellant came out from his room, which is situated adjacent to the room where the body of Pampa was lying.
The appellant was sleeping in his room.
On hearing the call of Sampa, companyplainants mother opened the gate.
PW 17 Sampa went upstairs and raised a cry.
According to him, he immediately went up and checked the gate on the roof.
On being questioned, the appellant who was fumbling stated that he was number responsible for this mischief.
Hence, this appeal.
On seeing the dead body of Pampa, they also started shouting.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
Learned Sessions Judge companyvicted the appellant under Sections 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ , in default, to suffer further RI for one year.
On the night intervening 30/10/1997 and 31/10/1997, Sampa, the second daughter of the companyplainant had gone out to watch a video show, which was held very close to the companyplainants house to celebrate Kali Pooja.
She started shouting.
The companyplainant, then lodged a written companyplaint before O.C., Khanakul Police Station.
He and his wife PW 14 Kanan and his mother PW 18 Sagarika rushed upstairs.
It was number possible for anyone to enter or leave the house without unlocking the gate.
The appellant denied the prosecution case.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. The appellant Kashinath Mondal was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh, Hooghly in S.T. Case No.66 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short, the IPC .
