Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1357 OF 2008

Chunda Murmu ….Appellant

Versus

State of West Bengal ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

This appeal, by special leave,  is directed against the judgment dated  

10.04.2006 passed by the  High Court of Calcutta affirming the conviction of  

the accused-appellant  as  recorded by the learned trial  court under Sections  

302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  The accused-appellant,  

Chunda Murmu, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life  

under Section 302 of IPC whereas under Sections 364 and 201 of IPC each, he  

has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith  

fine. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Page 2

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, inter-alia, is that on 15.03.1990,  

one Anil Mardi, P.W.7, lodged a complaint in the Habibpur Police Station to  

the effect that his sister – Kamla, who was married to the accused appellant  

for about six years, had been missing since 10.03.1990.  It had been further  

stated, in the complaint filed, that though the complainant had searched for his  

sister, her whereabouts were not known and that the complainant suspected  

that she was murdered by her husband, namely, the accused-appellant.   

3. On the basis  of  the aforesaid complaint,  P.W.16 – P.K.  Dutta,  Sub-

Inspector  of  Police,  filed  the  formal  FIR  –  Ex.6  on  the  basis  of  which  

Habibpur P.S. Case No. 17/90 was registered.  In the course of investigation,  

the accused-appellant was arrested on 15.3.1990 at Palashdanga, whereafter,  

he was brought to Habibpur Police Station.  According to the prosecution, the  

accused-appellant,  while  in  custody,  had  made  a  statement  that  he  had  

murdered his wife and had kept the dead body concealed in the khuti ghar of  

his father at village Horegram.  Furthermore, according to the prosecution, on  

the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the accused, the dead body of  

deceased Kamla was recovered from the khuti ghar of one Charan Murmu, the  

father of the accused-appellant, in the presence of seven witnesses including  

the  Block  Development  Officer,  Shri  Manas  Kumar  Mandal,  P.W.15.  

2

Page 3

Thereafter inquest was held on the dead body which was sent for postmortem  

examination.   In  the  report  of  the  post  mortem,  the  cause  of  death  was  

mentioned  by  the  Doctor  as  homicidal  throttling.   In  the  course  of  

investigation, the I.O. – PW 16, also seized some mud stained hay from the  

Kuthi  ghar,  some earth etc.  in the presence of  witnesses  vide Seizure List  

Ex.5.   The wearing apparels of the deceased, i.e. mud stained green check  

saree, mud stained green petty coat, black blouse stained with mud were also  

seized in the presence of witnesses vide Seizure List Ex.3.  Thereafter, at the  

conclusion  of  the  investigation,  chargesheet  was  submitted  against  the  

appellant-accused  and  his  father  Charan  Murmu  under  Sections  

302/364/201/34 of  IPC.   The father  of  accused-appellant  died and charges  

under  the  aforesaid  Sections  of  the  IPC were  framed  against  the  accused  

appellant.

4. The accused-appellant  pleaded not  guilty  to  the  charges  framed and  

claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial, 16 witnesses were examined by  

the prosecution and none by the defence.  However, the accused appellant was  

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the course of which he had stated that  

he had been falsely implicated in the case.  Thereafter, at the conclusion of the  

trial, the accused-appellant had been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3

Page 4

5. We have been elaborately taken through the entire evidence on record  

by the learned counsel for the appellant.  A consideration of the evidence of  

the prosecution  witnesses examined in the case would go to show that there  

are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the prosecution has sought to bring  

home the charges levelled on the basis of certain circumstances that have been  

unfolded by the  witnesses  examined.   Having considered the  evidence  on  

record, we are of the view that in the present case the prosecution relies on the  

following circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused:  

(1) The accused-appellant and the deceased were married for about 6  years and that there were frequent quarrels between the two.  

(2) A salish (meeting) was held to resolve the disputes between  the husband and the wife which, however, was not attended by the  accused and his deceased father.   

(3) The  deceased  had  left  the  matrimonial  home  and  went  to  reside with PW 6 –Bishu Murmu.   

(4) The  accused  had  brought  back  his  wife  to  his  home from  where she had gone missing from 10.03.1990.   

(5) Despite  a  vigorous  search  to  locate  the  deceased,  her  whereabouts could not be known.

(6) That  the  accused  was  arrested  on  15.03.1990  from  Palashdanga and while in police custody he had made a statement  that he had killed his wife and kept the body hidden in the kuthi ghar  of his father.   

(7) On the basis  of  the aforesaid statement  the dead body was  recovered from the place pointed out by the accused in the presence  of  PW  15-  Block  Development  Officer  and  other  witnesses  

4

Page 5

including PW 5  - Subhas Soren and PW 6 – Bishu Murmu, who had  dug out the dead body, as directed by the police.   

6. The short question that needs to be answered is whether all or any of  

the  aforesaid  circumstances  have  been  proved  and  established  and  if  so  

whether on the basis of the said circumstances the conviction and sentence of  

the accused is tenable in law?

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the  

prosecution version that the accused was arrested on 15.03.1990 and that after  

his  arrest  he  had made a  statement  leading to  recovery  of  the  dead  body  

cannot  be  believed  inasmuch  as  it  is  proved  and  established  by the  other  

materials on record that the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on  

17.03.1990  following  his  arrest  which  is  claimed  to  have  been  made  on  

15.03.1990. According to the learned counsel, the very fact that the accused  

appellant  was  produced  before  the  Magistrate  on  17.03.1990 would  go to  

show that the prosecution version with regard to his arrest on 15th March and  

the alleged statements made by him on the said date are extremely doubtful. It  

is further urged by the learned counsel that the alleged statement made by the  

accused was not in the presence of police officers but the same was made  

before the witnesses examined by the prosecution.  It is also contended by the  

5

Page 6

learned counsel that at the time of recovery of the dead body, PW 15- the  

Block Development Officer, could not identify the accused. Learned counsel  

had further pointed out that in the course of the examination of the accused  

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the recovery of the dead body and other articles as  

made by the prosecution had not been put to the accused so as to enable him  

to explain the said circumstances appearing against him.

8. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that all  

the  proved  circumstances  give  rise  to  a  complete  chain  of  events  which  

unerringly point to only one direction, i.e., it is the accused and nobody else  

who had committed  the  crime.   Learned counsel  has  also  pointed out  the  

evidence of PW 16 – the Investigating Officer wherein the reasons for non  

production of the accused before the learned Magistrate at any time before  

17.03.1990 have been explained. By referring to the evidence tendered by the  

same witness, i.e., the Investigating Officer (PW 16) it has been pointed out  

that the statement of accused leading to recovery of the dead body was made  

while the accused was in police custody and that the said statement was so  

made in the presence of the police officers and as well as the other witnesses  

examined by the prosecution.  Insofar as the circumstances put to the accused  

in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned, learned counsel  

6

Page 7

has pointed out that the recovery of the dead body was put to the accused in  

the  course  of  such  examination  and  there  is  no  lacuna  in  this  regard,  as  

contended on behalf of the appellant.

9. The fact that the accused and the deceased were married and that there  

were frequent quarrels between the two is not seriously disputed. It is also not  

in dispute that the deceased had left her husband and had been residing with  

PW 6 from whose  house  she  was  brought  by the  accused on 10.03.1990.  

Insofar as the issue with regard to the arrest of the accused on 15.03.1990 is  

concerned we find that, the evidence of PW 16 - the Investigating Officer of  

the case does contain an explanation for the production of the accused before  

the learned Magistrate on 17.03.1990 despite his arrest on 15th March. If the  

said evidence of PW 16 is to be reasonably read, the prosecution version of  

the arrest of the accused on 15th of March remains unaffected.   From the  

evidence  of  Investigating  Officer  it  is  also  clear  that  the  statement  of  the  

accused  leading to  the  recovery  of  dead body was made while  he  was  in  

custody and the same was in the presence of police officers, though, at that  

time some other persons were also present in the police station.  The recovery  

of the dead body, therefore, is a fact which is admissible in evidence under  

Section 27 of the Evidence Act.  The absence of identification of the accused  

7

Page 8

by PW 15 at the time of recovery of the dead body, according to us, will not  

affect the core of the prosecution case. Insofar as the alleged defects in the  

examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned,  having  

perused the record, we find that all incriminating circumstances relevant to the  

case had been put to the accused and no material  irregularity causing any  

prejudice to the accused can be attributed to the prosecution in this regard. All  

the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, therefore, can be held to be  

proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said circumstances, in our considered  

view, are more than adequate to enable us to come to the conclusion that the  

conviction of the accused so far as the offences under Sections 302 and 201  

IPC is concerned had been correctly made in the facts and circumstances of  

the present case.  We therefore affirm the aforesaid part of the order of the  

High Court.

10. Insofar as the offence under Section 364 IPC is concerned, we have  

considered the materials on record on the basis of which the aforesaid offence  

has been held to be proved.  According to us, the action of the accused in  

bringing back his wife to the matrimonial home from the house of PW 6 –  

Bishu Murmu cannot attract the necessary ingredients of either the offence of  

kidnapping or abduction so as to attract Section 364 IPC.   

8

Page 9

11. Consequently this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence  

under Sections 302 and 201 IPC is maintained whereas the conviction under  

Section 364 IPC and the sentence imposed is set aside.

...…………………………J. [SWATANTER KUMAR]

……………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

New Delhi, May 10, 2012.      

9