Sudhir Ch.Biswas Vs The State

Published on: August 16,2021

Date of decision: – 03 September 1986

Citation: – 1987 CriLJ 863

Bench: – S Chakrabarty, G C Chatterjee

Accused: – Sudhir Ch.Biswas

Prosecution: – State

Statute reference: – Indian Penal Code, 1860

Facts:-

1. Convicted of two offences, one Under Section 302, I.P.C. for murdering his wife (Kalidasi) with a dagger and another Under Section 324, I.P.C. for causing hurt to his mother-in-law with the same self dagger and sentenced to R.I. for life and also to a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the first offence and to R.I. for one year for the second offence, the accused Sudhir Ch. Biswas has come up in appeal before us.

2. PS of Nadia district. Within Ranaghat the village Berkamgachi and the village Birnagar are situated side by side (see evidence of the chief of p.w.13). On 24-12-80, Mrs. Gauridasi (P. 10) Sudhir, the mother-in-law of the accused along with her daughter Kalidasi Biswas and her son-in-law Sudhir, was coming to her village Birnagar via Berkamgachi. It will be around 4.30 pm. Then. When they were passing near Barkamgachi Deep Tubewell No. 73 (PW 13), accused Sudhir started attacking his mother-in-law Gauridasi and gave her several blows.

His daughter Kalidasi tried to intervene, but in doing so she too was beaten with a dagger so much that she fell to the ground. RekharaniKirtaniya, a little girl, was standing on one side. He raised an alarm and on hearing his cries, the people around started running.

This incident was witnessed by many local people. Rekharani’s father NimaiKirtaniya was one of them. Nimai Mandal was in his house. Hearing the noise, he ran and reached the spot and saw that two injured women and the accused were also wearing blood-stained clothes.

Similarly, another villager Sachin Mandal, attracted by the noise, also reached the spot. He saw that the dagger was lying on the ground and accused Sudhir was standing there. At that time Santosh Modak, a resident of Barkamgachi, was sitting inside a local shop.

Hearing the cries, he reached the spot. He saw Sudhir stabbing his wife. Similarly, Budheshwar Biswas saw accused Sudhir standing with a bloodied dagger. Sudhir was caught red handed by the local people. Both the injured women were lying on the ground covered in blood.

3. The last nominated witness P.W. 1 Budheshwar Biswas who was a local picked up Sudhir’s injured Kalidasi wife to Ranaghat Hospital, where the woman breathed her last shortly after. The mother-in-law was also taken to that hospital. The MO examined both the injured. P.W. 11 Dr. K.P. trust.

However, the mother-in-law survived. Four hours after the incident, a local resident reached Kalipada Pal police station Ranaghat and gave a written statement stating all the necessary details related to the incident.The written complaint was later treated as an FIR. and marked the extension.

That night I.O. SI Ruhidas Biswas came to the PO, prepared a rough sketch map and examined several witnesses who recorded their statements under Section 161, CrPC. At PO, near Deep Tube Well No. 73, they confiscated blood stained daggers, some control earth and blood stained soil under seizure list 1/1.

Then the next day. That is, on 25-12-80 he confiscated the yellow terylene shirt stained with blood that Sudhir was wearing under the seizure list extension 2/1. They took the accused into police custody. On 25-12-80, he went to the local Ranaghat hospital and sent the body of Kalidasi for post-mortem. P.W. 14 SIBL Roy Chowdhury investigated the matter at the hands of Ruhidas Biswas.

He recorded the statements of several witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC. In which the statement of mother-in-law Gauridasi is also included. He sent the confiscated items through SDJM for forensic report. Ranaghat 17-4-81.The charge sheet of the case was submitted on 21-4-83 by the subsequent police officer Mr. Shyamal Samdar (P.W. 15), Mr. Samdar collected the post-mortem report as well as the forensic report during the investigation of the case. Thereafter in due course Sudhir was committed to the Sessions Court.

4. Before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadia, accused Sudhir faced the trial. At the trial two distinct charges were framed as against Sudhir, one Under Section 302,1.P.C. for murdering his wife and another Under Section 324, I.P.C. for causing hurt to Gauridasi with a sharp cutting weapon namely the dagger. Before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, P.W. 10 Gauridasi revealed the whole incident in detail.

She deposed as to how and by what weapon and when she was assaulted by her own son-in-law. Her evidence was believed by the learned trial Court. Her evidence was corroborated by Dr. K. P. Biswas, M.O. (P.W. 11) of Ranaghat Hospital who had the opportunity to examine her shortly after the incident.

From P.W. 11 it appears that the old lady received as many as 4 incised wounds on different parts of her body. The opinion of the Doctor was that the wounds were caused by a dagger. Before the doctor Gauridasi had given out that she had been assaulted by her son-in-law “as a result of quarrel due to family problem”.

On all these points P.W. 11 was not cross-examined at the trial. The Court it appears was also impressed by the child witness P.W. 3 Rekharani Kirtaniya. Her evidence is that in her presence Sudhir murdered his wife and assaulted his mother-in-law.

The father of the child witness, Nimai also corroborated her in material particulars. It is this Nimai who caught hold of the accused at the spot and tied him up with a pole. The evidence of the child was that she had cried out seeing the incident. It is quite natural.

It is also quite natural that hearing her cries other people namely her father and other witnesses namely P.W. 1 Budheswar, P.W. 2 Santosh Modak, P.W. 6 Nimai Mondal P.W. 7 Sachin Mondal’ etc. would assemble at the spot. The learned trial Court found that all these natural and probable witnesses were absolutely disinterested and that there was nothing to disbelieve them when they said that they had seen the accused, the dagger and the two injured women over there.

The child herself marked the acts of assault made by Sudhir upon the two women. The father of the child had also seen Sudhir assaulting his wife with a dagger. It is true that in their earlier statements before the I.O. these eye-witnesses did not relate the incident with all its details. We are however, relieved to find that the broad facts of the case were never omitted before the I.O.

5. It is accepted by both the parties that the accused Sudhir is a beggar. He used to roam from house to house begging for food. It is also evidence of child witness as well as Nimai Mandal (P.W. 5), in his examination u/s 313, Cr.P.C. Sudhir also told that his “business was beggar”.

It is not arguable that all these witnesses would betray themselves in one body against a beggar from their village. His evidence was also supported by the testimony of the doctor on record.Two doctors were examined. Of these, MO P.W. 11 Dr. K.P. Biswas and Dr. K.P. Datta (p.w. 12) Both were of the opinion that the injury to Kalidasa’s body was caused by a dagger. Dr. K.P., who did the post-mortem. Dutta’s further opinion was that the chest touching the 8th rib adjacent to the intercostal muscle was very deep and there was excessive bleeding along with cutting off the nerves, pleura and right lung of the body.

The death in his opinion was due to chest injuries over the vital part on her body and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. The cross-examination of this doctor was declined by the defence at the trial Court.’

In view of these abundant materials on the record regarding the guilt of the accused, learned trial Court came to the only reasonable conclusion that the accused was guilty of both the offences of murdering his wife as also of assaulting his mother-in-law in the way as alleged by the prosecution.

Issue: – Convicted of two offences, – one under S. 302, I. P. C. for murdering his wife (Kalidasi) with a dagger and another under S. 324, I. P. C. for causing hurt to his mother-in-law with the same self dagger and sentenced to R. I. for life and also to a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the first offence and to R. I. for one year for the second offence

Judgement: –

1. Mr. Jaiswal, learned advocate appearing for Sudhir the appellant in his usual fairness has submitted that he does not want us to disbelieve the P. Ws. P. Ws. according to him were rightly believed by the learned trial Court. He has however, invited our attention to the evidence of the child witness who disclosed before the Court in her cross-examination that “the accused used to beg in our mohalla and it seems to me that he was, an abnormal type of man”.
2. Similar is the evidence of Nimai P.W. 5 who gave out in his cross-examination that “I saw this accused to beg in our house and also saw this man to roam in our village in mad condition”. Mr. Jaiswal has also drawn our attention to the order sheet dt. 2-3-81 of the trial Court’s record of the S.D.J.M., Ranaghat to show that the S.D.J.M. concerned could at least for a day mark some abnormality regarding the behaviour of Sudhir while he was in judicial custody.
3. Mr. Jaiswal has also invited our attention to the two cases . He has argued that the quoted evidence has cast a reasonable doubt in our mind as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the accused and that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not thus discharged. We have given our best consideration to the aforesaid contention of Mr. Jaiswal. Mr. Jaiswal wants to save his client by showering on him the benefit of Section 84, I.P.C.
4. In our considered opinion insanity to be recognised as an exception to criminal liability must be such as to disable an accused person from knowing the nature of the act, when he committed the criminal act. If at the time of committing the offence the accused knew the nature of the act, he is guilty. Unsoundness of mind means and implies a state of mind in which an accused is incapable of knowing that he is doing any wrong or anything contrary to law. And the burden of proving this is upon the person who takes the plea.
5. More concentricity or strange behaviour of the accused is not enough to constitute his unsoundness of mind vide Keshaorao v. State of Maharashtra 1979 Cri LJ 403 (Bom). Moreover it is only legal insanity that furnishes ground for exemption from criminal liability. We may point out even at the risk of repetition that in order to constitute legal insanity the, unsoundness of mind must be such as to make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing an act contrary to law. It is precisely this state of mind at the time of offence, neither ante nor post offence which is only material for the purpose of determining whether the accused was of unsound mind.
6. Insanity in other words must exist at the time of commission of offence. The view we have taken finds strong support in the illustrious case of Kalahari. There the prosecution case was that Kalabati was sleeping along with her husband-appellant. She cried out at night and on the morning she was found dead. Accused-appellant in that case took the plea that he was insane.
7. It was held that the “entire conduct of the accused from the time he killed his wife up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced was inconsistent with the fact that he had a fit of insanity when he killed his wife. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed”.
8. None of the witnesses in our case had uttered a single word regarding the then abnormal conduct or behaviour or state of mind of Sudhir at the P.O. On the contrary the evidence on record is that at the P.O. the accused first tried to assault his mother-in-law and being opposed by his wife he fell (a prey) upon her and began to stab her with a dagger repeatedly.
9. Even when the wife fell on the ground he sat upon her waist and did not stop short of assaulting her again. Mr. Jaiswal has craved by saying that his client did not try to run away. We however cannot forget that his client was tied up by the villagers with a pole so much so he could get hardly any opportunity to flee away from the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution here that the dagger was picked up by Sudhir on the way and that he suddenly made use of it like a madman.
10. Mrs. Moitra appearing for the State respondent has rightly argued by saying that it was a case of cool and calculated murder so much so that Sudhir was carrying with him a dagger. Mrs. Moitra has reminded us that Sudhir was a beggar and that the beggar was not expected to carry a dagger with him. Indeed we agree with Mrs. Moitra that there was a method in the alleged madness of the accused Sudhir.
11. We have spared much thought over the contention of Mr. Jaiswal and to our mind it does not appear that the accused Sudhir might have been a mad man at the time of occurrence. On the contrary our considered view is that the accused was perfectly sane at the time of occurrence and that h,e committed the crime in the usual way not being pressurized by any unsoundness or abnormality of his mind. It is significant to note in this connection that in course of his examination Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as many as 30 questions were put to Sudhir. Sudhir answered all of them satisfactorily.
12. His answer to the last question was “on the day of incident I went to perform my work. On returning home from my work 1 found that my wife was lying on the ground being murdered, 1 did not murder her.” Sudhir cannot be believed. He was evidently speaking lies. We prefer to believe the villagers who deposed against him at the trial. In his petition of appeal sent through Dum Dum Central Jail, Sudhir has stated that at the time of incident he was not drunk that he did not murder his wife and that he was only trying to control his wife’s misbehaviour. We do not know what was or could have been the “misbehaviour” that his wife did exhibit before him.
13. One thing, however, is clear namely that the husband Sudhir was not justified in taking away her life by striking her chest vehemently with a dagger leading her to the said catastrophe. The averments made in the “petition of appeal” are also untrue because they contain no explanation as to why he assaulted his mother-in-law first.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above we find no good reason to set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court. In our considered opinion Sudhir was rightly convicted of the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and 9. 324, I.P.C. No argument was advanced before us regarding any impropriety of the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal should therefore stand dismissed.
15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is affirmed.

Conclusion:-

In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above we find no good reason to set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court. In our considered opinion Sudhir was rightly convicted of the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and 9. 324, I.P.C. No argument was advanced before us regarding any impropriety of the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

The appeal should therefore stand dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is affirmed.