1                                                                       

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1081 OF 2006

JALADHAR MONDAL                                   Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL                              Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

GANGULY, J.

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae in the matter as also the  

learned counsel for the State.   

2. This  appeal  is  at  the  instance  of  the  sole  surviving  

appellant against the judgment and order of conviction by the  

Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura, which was affirmed by the High  

Court.  

3. Initially, there were three accused persons, namely, the  

appellant  Jaladhar  Mondal,  Meghnath  Mondal  and  Smt.  Rasibala  

Mondal.   Jaladhar  Mondal  is  the  husband  of  the  deceased  Rina  

Mondal and Meghnath Mondal and Smt. Rasibala Mondal respectively  

are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Rina, who was  

married  in  the  family  of  Mondals  with  the  appellant-accused  

Jaladhar.  The death of Rina Mondal took place within one year of

                                                                         2                                                                       

her marriage.   

4. Initially, the accused persons were charged under Section  

302/201 I.P.C. alternatively under Sections 304B/398A I.P.C.   

5. The trial court after a full-fledged trial, convicted the  

accused persons under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and sentenced them to  

suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 and further ordered  

rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 201 IPC and to pay a  

fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo further imprisonment  

for three months and the sentences were to run concurrently.  All  

the accused persons were acquitted of the charges u/s. 498A and  

304-B IPC.

6. After their conviction, an appeal was taken to the High  

Court by the accused persons.  During the pendency of the appeal,  

Meghnath Mondal and Smt. Rasibala Mondal expired.  However, the  

present appellant, Jaladhar Mondal was convicted by the High Court  

and the present appeal is at his instance only.   

7. The incident which had taken place and led to the death of  

the deceased, Rina Mondal, have been very graphically noted with  

all the details in the judgment of the learned Trial Judge.  So,  

these facts are not repeated here.  

                                                                         3                                                                       

8. In  this  case,  the  information  was  lodged  by  PW-4  on  

receiving information on 25.3.88 about the death of the deceased,  

Rina Mondal, allegedly by catching fire at the matrimonial house.  

On receiving the said information, PW-4 came to the village of the  

appellant and after getting the information from the local people,  

lodged the complaint at the local police station alleging foul  

play.  On receipt of such complaint, the local police started a  

specific case and thereafter getting the post mortem report from  

Doctor, which confirmed homicidal death of Rina Mondal, submitted  

charge-sheet against the appellant.  

9. In all, 12 witnesses were examined of which PW-1 is the  

brother of Meghnath Mondal (since deceased), PW-2 and PW-3 are the  

neighbors of the appellant, PW-4 is the cousin of the deceased  

girl and PW-6 is the father of the deceased, PW-7 is Dr. J.N. Dey,  

who conducted the post mortem, PW-8 is the mother of the deceased  

girl and PW-11 is the other neighbor of the appellant and PW-12 is  

the Investigating Officer.    

10. Both the courts – trial court and the High Court, after  

detailed consideration of the evidence available on record, came  

to the concurrent finding that there is no direct evidence in the  

case.  The evidence on the basis of which both the Courts have  

proceeded was the circumstantial evidence and also the medical  

evidence  of  PW-7.   Medical  evidence  of  PW-7  has  figured  very

                                                                         4                                                                       

prominently in the case and relying on the medical evidence of PW-

7, both the Trial Judge and the High Court negatived the defence  

case that Rina Mondal died out of accidental fire in the house.  

The learned Trial Judge upon very detailed consideration of the  

medical evidence and by referring to various authorities of the  

medical jurisprudence have come to notice the nature of injuries,  

which  have  been  sustained  by  Rina  Mondal,  particularly  the  

fracture of cornua of hyoid bone of both sides, fracture of first  

and second ribs on the left side and fracture of first rib on  

right side.  The trial court held, and rightly so, that these  

injuries cannot be caused by accidental fire but was the result of  

manual strangulation by more than one persons.

11. The evidence of PW-7, the post moretm Doctor, is relevant  

in  this  connection.   PW-7  is  a  Professor  and  Head  of  the  

Department of Forensic and State Medicine at B.S.M.C. & Hospital  

and is obviously an independent witness.  PW-7 deposed that in the  

case of Rina Mondal, soot was absent in the larynx and trachea  

column and that led the post moretm Doctor to opine that the burn  

injuries  were  post-mortem  in  nature.    On  the  basis  of  this  

evidence, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the  

death  of  Rina  Mondal  initially  was  caused  by  physical  

strangulation and thereafter her body was thrown to the flames to  

destroy evidence of strangulation and the upper portion of the  

body was allowed to suffer third degree burn.

                                                                         5                                                                       

12. Both  the  trial  court  and  the  High  Court  found  it  very  

strange that in a case of accidental fire, nobody other than Rina  

Mondal suffered burn injuries and none of the three inmates of the  

house suffered a scratch of an injury, even though the defence  

case was that everybody was in the house at the time of accidental  

fire when the house caught fire.  There is no evidence that any  

one of the inmates of the house even tried to save Rina from fire  

and in the process got injured.  Both the courts have also found  

it very strange that in such a fire the adjoining house, which was  

also covered by thatched roof and which belonged to PW-1, brother  

of Megnath, did not catch fire at all.  All these facts were very  

correctly appreciated by the trial court and also by the High  

Court to come to the concurrent finding that death of Rina was  

caused by physical strangulation and then to cause disappearance  

of evidence of strangulation of Rina Mondal, her body was thrown  

in the flames, which was not accidental but was caused for the  

aforesaid purpose.   

13. Sitting  in  jurisdiction  under  Article  136  of  the  

Constitution of India, it is difficult for us to interfere with  

such  concurrent  findings  based  on  cogent  reasoning  and  proper  

appreciation of the materials on record and the evidence of the  

case.  It may also be noted that the appellant, who is the husband  

of the deceased, did not suffer any injury and made no attempt to

                                                                         6                                                                       

save the unfortunate girl.

14. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  

......................,J       (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

......................,J      (DEEPAK VERMA)

NEW DELHI MAY 25, 2011