Swatanter Kumar JUDGMENT
A.K. Patnaik, J.
1. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 18.07.2006 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 446 of 2004 sustaining the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment on the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Indian Penal Code') imposed by the Fast Track Court, Cooch Behar, in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2002 (S.T. No. 1(3)2002).
2. The facts very briefly are that one Puspa Nandi lodged a complaint before the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali P.S., that on 23.02.2002 at about 10.00 a.m. she went to Nayarhat to purchase some ration and there she heard that her daughter-in-law Pratima Nandi had been murdered. She rushed to her house and saw that Pratima was lying dead at the southern side of her house and when she enquired, her grand daughter, Manika, told her that the Appellant entered into their house with a big daa and killed her mother Pratima. The complaint was registered as an FIR and the Appellant was arrested on 23.02.2002 and the daa alleged to have been used in killing the deceased was recovered from a jungle at the side of the house of the Appellant. On 25.02.2002, the statement of Manika was recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code of Criminal Procedure.'). The post-mortem was carried out by Dr. V. Kumar and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and trial was conducted.
3. Manika, who was aged only eight years at the time of trial, was examined as PW-2 and she gave a vivid account of how her mother Pratima was killed by the Appellant with a daa. PW-1 (the complainant and the mother-in-law of the deceased), PW-8 (a resident of village Sajerpar in which the house of the deceased is located) and PW-11 (the husband of the deceased) who had heard soon after the incident from PW-2 that the Appellant had killed the deceased with a daa, also supported the prosecution case. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, who were residents of village Sajerpar, however, turned hostile and said that they have not given any statement to the Police on how the deceased was murdered. PW-6, who was alleged to have scribed the FIR, also turned hostile saying that he had written the FIR on instructions from the Police, but he did not know the complainant PW-1. PW-7, who was a resident of village Sajerpar, said that he knew neither the Appellant nor the deceased. PW-9, who was also a resident of the village Sajerpar, deposed that she did not know how the deceased was murdered. Dr. V. Kumar, who carried out the post-mortem, was examined as PW-10 and he described the injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the injuries could be caused by a sharp-cutting weapon and the injuries are 100% sufficient for causing death of the victim. PW-12 is the Officer-in-charge of Kotwali P.S. and he received the complaint of PW-1 and entrusted the investigation to S.I. D. Jha. PW-13 is the constable of Kotwali P.S. who took the dead body of the deceased to Sadar Hospital for post-mortem. PW-14 is S.I. D. Jha, the Investigating Officer, and he has said that the Appellant took him to the jungle by the side of his house and he brought out one daa from the jungle which was blood-stained at that tim........