State of Jharkhand Vs. Saiyad Rizwan - Court Judgment

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. In SessionsTrial No. 66 of 2000, learned 1st AdditionalSessions Judge, Jamshedpur, vide judgment and order of conviction and sentencedated 8th March, 2001 and 13th March,2001 respectively, convicted accusedSaiyad Rizwan alias Soni and ChaitaliBhowmick alias Shehnaz alias Sontu R.I.for five years under Section 201, IPC, R.I.for five years under Section 468, IPC, R.I.for five years under Section 420, IPC, R.I.for three years under Section 380, IPC andR.I. for two years under Section 411 readwith Section 34, IPC, all of which are to runconcurrently.

In respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC, both the accused have been awarded capital sentence. The Death Reference No. 1 of 2001 was listed for determination as to whether it is to be confirmed or not. A separate Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2001 has been preferred by accused Saiyad Rizwan alias Soni and Chaitali Bhowmick alias Shehnaz alias Sontu, which was also heard along with the above Death Reference.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant. Dr. Anupam Roy is maternal uncle of accused Chaitali Bhowmick alias Shehnaz alias Sontu, a Medical Practitioner at Ghatshila, Sub-division of District-East Singhbhum. The informant's mother Anita Roy, aged about 68 years, brother-in-law Subhendu Bhowmick, aged about 57 years, sister Lucky Bhowmick, aged about 57 years, sister's son Kalyan Bhowmick and sister's daughter Chaitali Bhowmick alias Sontu, aged about 25 years, were residing in a house, located at Ghorabandha, P.S.-TELCO (Govindpur). Subhendu Bhowmick, brother-in-law of the informant, was an employee of TELCO in its Forge Department. The informant was reluctant to visit the house at Ghorabandha for one of the reasons being bad character of ChaitaliBhowmick. The informant runs a Clinic at Ghatshila, known as 'Roy Clinic' and his wife Anuradha Roy used to reside at Lucknow along with the children, she being a teacher at Lucknow. The informant used to send money to his mother Anita Roy off and on and in the middle of April, 1999, he sent Rs. 500/- to his mother Anita Roy through a person, who returned from Jamshedpur and informed him (informant) that his Ghorabandha house was locked. As the brother-in-law, sister and family members of the informant used to go on tour, the informant did not try to know about his mother. On 20th May, 1999 a friend of Kalyan Bhowmick (Bhagina of the informant) reached the Clinic of the informant at Ghatshila and informed that the Ghorabandha house was locked and Kalyan, his parents and Nani (mother of the informant) were not there. The informant took telephone number of Sona Bhowmick (another Bhagini of the informant), the eldest daughter of his sister, from the friend of Kalyan. Sona Bhowmick had got married with a Muslim Umar Khan and was residing at Ranikudar with her husband. For the said reason, there was like warn relationship between the informant and Sona Bhowmick.

The informant talked to Sona Bhowmick on telephone and informed to her about the absence of his mother, sister, brother-in-law and Bhagina. Sona, thereafter, reached Ghatshila on 21st May, 1999 along with her husband and informed the informant that her brother Kalyan Bhowmick had attended a party in her house along with one of his friends and had returned after having meal in the end of January, 1999. She also informed the informant that she visited the Ghorabandha house in the first week of February, 1999 to meet her parents but she had only seen her sister Chaitali Bhowmick and sister's lover Rizwan, present in the house. When she enquired about her parents and brother from Chaitali, Chaitali (accused) informed her that the parents with Kalyan had gone to village-Ranaghat in West Bengal, in order to see the grand-mother (Dadi), who was stated to be ill. Sona further informed the informant that the room of her parents were locked and therefore, she enquired from Chaitali about locking of the rooms to which Chaitali replied that the rooms were locked by Mammi and she was looking after the house. Sona also informed the informant that she returned to her house immediately as she was not happy with the character of Chaitali and Saiyad Rizwan, who was seen there. Sona further informed the informant that after ten days Chaitali informed her on telephone that Mammi, Papa and Kalyan would not return as because of the death of the grandmother. Those facts Sona did not inform to the informant, as the informant was not happy with her (Sona) and as she (Sona) also believed the statement of Chaitali.

Sona Bhowmick also informed the informant that she had gone to Ghorabandha house in the first week of March, 1999 when she found the house locked and Chaitali and Rizwan were not present there. When she (Sona) enquired from the people of the locality, she could gather that Chaitali and Rizwan had left the house in a Maruti Car along with some articles and 2 pets (dogs) in the last week of February. She met P. Pramanik, a friend of her father Subhendu Bhowmick to know whether her father was attending duty or not, when she was informed by P. Pramanik that her father was not attending duties. She (Sona) could also gather from P. Pramanik that he had visited the Ghorabandha house in order to enquire about Subhendu as he was abstaining from duties, without any leave and had met with Chaitali, who partially opened the door and informed him (P. Pramanik) that her Papa had gone to village. P. Pramanik further informed Sona that Chaitali was ready to write an application for leave on behalf of her father Subhendu Bhowmick. The informant was also informed by Sona that she, thereafter, whenever visited Ghorabandha house, always found the house locked. Sona also expressed her apprehension before the informant that Chaitali and her husband might have caused disappearance of her Mammi, Papa, bother and Nani.

3. Having received such information from Sona Bhowmick, the informant talked to his wife at Lucknow, who (wife of the informant) reached Ghatshila on 29th May, 1999. The informant and his wife, thereafter, reached Ghorabandha house in the morning of 1st June, 1999 and found the house locked. The informant had to scale over the boundary wall to enter in the compound of the house and when he went to the back of the house, near the septic tank, noticed that the cap of the septic tank was sealed by cement recently. The informant having become suspicious, removed the cap of the septic tank and found foul smell emanating from the septic tank, unbearable. He noticed 4 to 5 dead bodies inside the septic tank and suspected that Chaitali Bhowmick and her lover Saiyad Rizwan have committed the murder and concealed the dead bodies of Anita Roy, Subhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick alias Bhuttan in the septic tank. The door of the house was broke opened and he went in the room of his brother-in-law and found dried blood stains on the bed. The almirah kept in the room was found to be broken and valuables had been removed. The informant suspected that after committing murder, valuables were taken away by Chaitali and Saiyad Rizwan some time in the end of January or beginning of February, 1999.

The fardbeyan of the informant Dr. Anupan Roy was recorded on 1st August, 1999 at 14.30 hours at Govindpur Police Station. Formal FIR (Ext. 18) was drawn up and TELCO (Govindpur) P.S. Case No. 103 of 1999 was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 380 read with Section 34, IPC. One Binod Kumar Singh took up the investigation of the case.

4. Four dead bodies were recovered from the septic tank of the informant's house at Ghorabandha during investigation, certain incriminating articles were also recovered from same place and house. Inquest report (Exts. 19 to 19/3) were prepared. Accused Chaitali Bhowmick alias Shehnaz and Saiyad Rizwan surrendered informed the Court on the basis of confessional statement, made before the I.O. Weapons of assault and some cloths containing blood stains were also recovered.

The I.O. recorded the statements of large number of witnesses. Four dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination to M.G.M. Medical College and Hospital, Jamshedpur. It became possible only to post-mortem the body of Anita Roy, as other dead bodies were found in the shape of Skelton. The bones of three dead bodies, of which the post-mortem could not be possible, were examined. The cuttings of all the seized clothes were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna, for chemical examination. Viscera of Anita Roy were also sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi, for chemical examination. The premises taken on rent by accused/appellant Chaitali Bhowmick and Saiyad Rizwan at Lucknow, was searched by the I.O. who recovered certain articles. On verification of Bank account of the deceased persons, the I.O. gathered that huge amounts were withdrawn from the bank account of deceased Anita Roy, Subhendu Bhowmick and Lucky Bhowmick.

In course of investigation, it transpired to the I.O. That one Md. Mahboob Hussain had helped the accused in concealing the dead bodies of Anita Roy, Subhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick. Md. Mahboob Hussain was arrested, who confessed his guilt and prayed before the C.J.M., Jamshedpur, for recording his confessional statement, which was recorded by one Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, under Section 164, Cr PC. On request of Md. Mahboob Hussain, learned C.J.M. was pleased to tender pardon, who undertook to disclose true facts, regarding the occurrence. The statement of Md. Mahboob Hussain, as a witness was recorded by the learned C.J.M. under Section 306, Cr PC.

5. There were certain defects, which came to the notice of the Court of Sessions. For the said reason, the Court records were sent to the C.J.M., who having removed the same, passed fresh commitment order andthe case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2000.

6. The accused persons having denied the allegation of their involvement in commission of murder of Anita Roy, Subhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, framed the following questions for consideration.

'(i) As to whether Anita Roy, Subhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick died homicidal death, and

(ii) As to whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all shadows of reasonable and probable doubts the charges levelled against the accused persons.'

7. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed in detail the statements of the prosecution witnesses and other evidences to convict the accused.

8. PW 32, the informant, has stated that Anita Roy was his mother, Subhendu Bhowmick was his brother-in-law, Lucky Bhowmick was his sister and Kalyan Bhowmick was his nephew (Bhagina). Sona Bhowmick and accused Chaitali Bhowmick were the two daughters of his sister Lucky Bhowmick and brother-in-law Subhendu Bhowmick. His mother Anita Roy, sister Lucky Bhowmick, brother-in-law Subhendu Bhowmick, nephew (Bhagina) Kalyan Bhowmick and niece (Bhagini) Chaitali Bhowmick used to reside in the house of his mother at Ghorabandha. In the middle of April, 1999, he sent a sum of Rs. 500/- to his mother from Ghatshila through a person, who returned and informed that the house at Ghorabandha was locked. On 20th May, 1999 a friend of Kalyan Bhowmick (Bhagina of the informant) approached him at Ghatshila and informed that Kalyan Bhowmick was not seen for a long period and other members of the family were not in the house since long and the house at Ghorabandha is locked. The friend of Kalyan had come to enquire about Kalyan from him (informant). The informant then took the telephone number of his niece (Bhagini) Sona Bhowmick and rangher. Further, according to the informant, Sona Bhowmick along with her husband Umar Khan reached Ghatshila on 21st May, 1999 and informed that Kalyan had attended a function in their house on 29th or 30 January, 1999, along with his friends. Sona also informed that she had gone to Ghorabandha house late in the night on the day of function along with meals for her parents, where she was received by Chaitali. Sona further informed that in the first week of February when she had gone to Ghorabandha house, she saw Chaitali and her husband.

9. The informant further stated that on receipt of information from Sona, he talked to his wife at Lucknow. His wife told him that she was coming to Ghatshila. After his wife reached Ghatshila on 29th May, 1999, he (informant) reached Jamshedpur along with his wife and friend Maamraj Jain alias Munna and went to his Ghorabandha house. He saw the gate as well as the house locked and tried to break open the lock with the help of bricks but it could not be possible. Then he scaled over the boundary wall and then they could manage to break open the lock of the house and entered the sleeping room of his sister. The informant has stated to have found stain of blood on the mattress (Toshak and bed-sheet and found the door of almirah opened and the locker was broken. According to the informant, there were no valuables in the almirah. He went to the 1st floor of the house along with his wife to see the room, occupied by his mother and found that the almirah of his mother was also open and glass fitted at one of the doors of almirah was broken and scattered. There were spots of dried blood, present on the floor of the room and the broken glasses. Thereafter, he came out of the house and searched hither and thither. When he proceeded towards the back of the house, he could saw that the septic tank's cover was sealed recently by cement. On suspicion, he removed the cap of the septic tank and found foul smell, emanating from the septic tank. When he looked into the septic tank, he saw human bodies of 4/5 persons. Then he went to Umarji, who being not present in his house,waited there for some time and on his arrival, he went to Govindpur Police Station to give statement, which was recorded by the Police Officer. He identified his signature on the fardbeyan (Ext. 3/45).

Informant also stated that the police reached Ghorabandha house, saw the dead bodies, prepared inquest reports and recorded his statement. He received the dead body of his mother after post-mortem, to perform her last rituals. The skelton of other dead bodies were received by him in the 3rd week of June, 1999.

10. PW 17, Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, who is a friend of Kalyan, has supported the informant's version that in the month of May, 1999 he having found Kalyan's house locked for a number of days, went to Ghatshila to enquire the whereabouts of Kalyan from the informant and he had given telephone number of Sona Bhowmick to the informant.

11. PW 8 Umar Khan, husband of Sona Bhowmick, in his evidence has supported the informant's statement that on 1st June, 1999 at about 12.30 p.m. or 12.45 p.m. he received information from the informant Dr. Anupam Roy to reach Ghorabandha house. When he (Umar Khan-PW 8) reached Ghorabandha house, he saw that the lock of the house was broken and a number of people were looking into the septic tank. He also supported the informant's statement that he went to Govindpur Police Station along with the informant (PW 32) where the informant gave his statement and he put signature on the fardbeyan of the informant (Ext. 3/3). He further stated that he returned to his house and brought her wife Sona to Ghorabandha house where he saw a big crowd and the police had taken out all the four dead bodies from the septic tank.

The evidence of Umar Khan (PW 8) was consistent at the time of cross-examination, who was an independent witness.

12. PW 9, Anuradha Roy, wife of the informant Dr. Anupam Roy, has supported the statement of the informant that she came on 1st June, 1999 to Ghorabandha house along with her husband and oneMaamraj Jain. As the gate of the house was locked, attempt was made to break open the lock of the gate and the same having not become possible, the informant scaled over the boundary wall, went inside the compound of Ghorabandha house and she also went inside the compound of the house and the lock of the house was broken. She made similar statement and supported the fact that they entered into the house and found blood stains on mattress (Toshak) of the bed. The almirah in the room of her sister-in-law was broken and when she entered into the room of her mother-in-law on the 1st floor, they found black spots of blood like substance under the cot (Chowki), which was used by her mother-in-law. Consistent statement, supporting the informant's version, has been made by PW 9, who has also stated that the glasses of almirah in her mother-in-law's room was broken and scattered on the floor, which also contained blood stains. According to her, she as well as her husband went to see the well but could not notice anything and thereafter, they noticed the septic tank, cover of which was found recently sealed by fresh cement.

She also supported the statement of the informant that when the cover of the septic tank was removed, it became unbearable because of foul smell. She could not stand there but her husband (informant) looked into the septic tank, saw the dead bodies inside the tank and told Maamraj to inform Sona's husband Umar Khan. When Umar Khan arrived, the informant, Umar Khan and Maamraj Jain went to Govindpur Police Station to report the occurrence.

The aforesaid evidence of PW 9 (Anuradha Roy) remained consistent during cross-examination.

13. The I.O. (PW 34) has stated that on 1st June, 1999, while posted as Officer-in-charge, Govindpur Police Station, the informant Dr. Anupam Roy reached the Police Station at about 2.30 p.m. and gave information about the occurrence. He recorded the statement of the informant, in presence of Umar Khan and Maamraj Jain,who also put signature on the fardbeyan (Ext. 16). He reached Ghorabandha house, inspected the septic tank from which four dead bodies were taken out in presence of Raju Ghosh, Madhu Gorai, informant and other persons and accordingly, prepared inquest reports (Ext. 19 to 19/3). He sent all the four dead bodies to M.G.M. Medical College and Hospital, Jamshedpur with constable after preparing body Chalan. The dead bodies were in highly decomposed condition. The I.O. has described the place of occurrence, which is a double storeyed building surrounded by boundary wall, having entrance facing the road in which the grill gate is fitted. He has stated that when he entered in the Ghorabandha house, he found one Awanti moped, one Singer sewing machine and other household articles lying in a room in the south of the entrance gate. There was a big room adjacent to the said small room, which had entrance in the north. The informant told him that the aforesaid room was being used by his brother-in-law Subhendu Bhowmick and sister-in-law Lucky Bhowmick. The I.O. (PW 34) further stated that he found a double bed (Palang) in the room on which there was a mattress (Toshak) and on the northern corner of the mattress (Toshak) there was spot of dried blood. He found two steel almirahs by the side of the eastern wall of the room, which were opened and damaged. The locker was open and no article was there in the locker. On inspection of the almirahs, he found that they were opened with the help of a pointed article. The Saries and other articles in the almirah were scattered and he found black spots of blood, present in the eastern and northern corner of the floor of the said room.

The I.O. (PW 34) has given the details of the place of occurrence. He has stated that the door of the aforesaid room was in the eastern corner, leading to store room, kitchen, bath-room, latrine and dining hall. The dinning hall is located in the eastern part of the building from where one can to in the eastern compound, through the western door fitted with the grill. The septic tank is located in the compound of thehouse in the eastern northern corner. There is a door connecting dining hail and sitting room and from sitting room to small room one can go through the connected main door of the house. The I.O. found Sofa-set and table in the dining hall and stated that there is a stair room (Sirhi Ghar), adjacent to the dining hall, in which old almirah, damaged wooden articles and useless house-hold articles were kept. He further disclosed that there is a door adjacent to south wall of stair room, which goes to southern compound of the house. There is a well in the southern part of compound and there is one mango three and other plants in the east of the well. The septic tank, from which four dead bodies were taken out, is in two parts. The dead bodies were found in the southern chamber of the septic tank. He further stated that the informant identified one of the dead bodies as that of his mother Anita Roy. The cover of the septic tank was of 2 1/2' x 2' in size, which was removed by the informant. The condition of the cover of the chamber of septic tank showed that the same was sealed long ago whereas the cover of another chamber, containing fresh cement, suggested that the cover was sealed recently. The dead bodies, according to the I.O., were recovered from the chamber of septic tank in which the seal of cover was made recently. He also found many bottles of acid and phenyl, scattered hither and thither near the septic tank. In his description, the I.O. has stated that there is only one room in the first floor, stated to have been occupied by the informant's mother. The I.O. found one table kept in the said room near the southern wall, there were two big cupboards (chambers) in the table. The informant informed him that there were one colour T.V. and V.C.R., which were kept in the chambers of the table but the I.O. did not find any such colour T.V. or V.C.R. He found one dressing table in the eastern side of the table and one almirah in the aforesaid room. Both the doors of almirah and locker were open and no valuables were available in the locker. The mirror of the dressing table was broken from upper part and the broken glass was lying on the floor of the room, which contained blood stains. There was a cot (Chowki) by the side of the eastern wall of the room, which also contained spots of dried blood. He found huge quantity of blood on the floor between almirah and the cot (Chowki) and blood spots were also present at many places, scattered on the floor of the room. The I.O. has given the boundary of the place of occurrence at Pr. 9 of his evidence, as of Ghorabandha house.

14. Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24), Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, M.G.M. College and Hospital, Jamshedpur, made autopsy on the dead body of Anita Roy, the female aged about 68 years on 2nd June, 1999 at 10.00 a.m. The dead body was identified by Constable No. 500 (Bijendra Prasad) and the doctor found the following injuries on the person of deceased Anita Roy :

'The dead body was in advanced decomposed but due to adipocerous formation the structure of the body was found preserved. The soft tissues at places liquified leaving the flesh of legs bare. The lower half of the facial skin missing, top of skull was bare. The sagittal suture both on inner and outer table were obliterated along with corner suture alveolar border of the mandible obliterated. Soft tissue over left arm missing.

A. There was blood stain and contusion or remaining soft tissues over left half of forehead.

B. Incised wound transversally placed measuring 3 x 2 cm. x trachea. The trachea was cut over front of neck with underlying cervical vertebra which had a partial cut. Blood infiltration of underlying soft tissues brown in colour.

In the opinion of Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24) the injuries under the head 'A' and 'B' were ante mortem in nature and injury No. 'A' was caused by 'hard and blunt substance' whereas injury under head 'B' was caused by 'sharp edged weapon.' The doctor was of the opinion that the death of Anita Roy had taken place 3 to 4 months before the time of post-mortem examination. The Postmortem report of Anita Roy was marked as Ext. 6.

15. The other dead bodies were also examined by Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24), which were in advanced stage of decomposition. He found the followings on one of the dead bodies :

'The trunk, pelvis and lower limbs of one of the bodies found naked, rancid smell emitting, soft tissues over pelvis and public area, front of abdomen and chest turned into adipocere. The skelton over back of chest and adjoining abdomen were devoid of skin and soft tissues. The upper extremities (left and right) were taken out from the rest of bone for comparison with the bonely remains, there was sweater of Firozi colour full sleeve on the body and sex, size of the length of the bone and bony under examination. It also contained a sleeveless white dotted blouse, a tuft of long hairs measuring 60-70 cm. black colour in which pieces of skull bone, maxilla two pieces and mandible found entangled. It was also taken out for bone examination. The right upper extremity bone was found in one piece articulated together upto terminal phalanges. The left upper extremity bone were lying separated and by measuring length, circumference, bony land marks resembled with right upper extremities. The hand was missing which was received by me on 5.6.1999. Left hand was without left little finger and metacarpal of the corresponding finger. Total bones enlisted :--

1. Ribs--12 in each side.

2. Vertebrae--Lumbar 5, Thoracic 12.

3. Cervical--4--Cervical vertebrae 1st, 2nd and 3rd missing.

4. Sternum with Manubrium sterni--present.

5. Hip bone with sacrum, phimur of both sides.

6. Tibia and fibula of both sides and foot bones on both sides articulated.

Measurement :--

Headless body--121 cm.

Length of Femur--37 cm.

Length of Tibia--33 cm.

By applying Karl Pearson formula, the stature of the deceased comes to 5 ft. 1' with the error of 2-4 cm.'

Mandible--The chin was rounded ascending ramous were small, condyloid process-small. Total number of teeth in socket-7 on right side and 5 on left side. Molar-2, premolar-2, canine-1, incisor-2, on right side. There was a cavity in the place of third molar on left side with obliteration of alveolar border at the place of 2nd molar teeth. Obliteration suggested tooth extraction earlier. Upper jaw-teeth were small and right upper jaw contained large central inciser, smalt lateral inciser, one canine. 1st pre-molar, space for second premolar was found empty and two molar teeth in the socket. Third molar socket absorbed.

Left upper jaw--Central inciser bigger in size than lateral inciser and had a notch on medial border canine and two premolar were present in the socket and the space for first molar empty with evidence of caries of the socket. Third molar socket was empty. All the teeth were permanent.

Skull bone pieces--a cranial bone pieces were assembled to form the cranium. The pieces of cranial were as follows :--1. Two pieces of temporal bone, wings of sphenoid bones, one for each side. The mastroid process was small and rounded. Digastries groove was shallow.

2. Occipital bone in two pieces with lambdoid suture and dorsal margin of foremen magnum.

3. Four pieces of perital with bone fitting exactly on sagittal suture.

4. Two pieces of orbit-one with Zygomatic bone and other orbital part of frontal bone. The margin was rounded and the socket was round. The zygomatic process was not prominent. All these bones assembled, formed cranium except portion of frontal bone where a gap existed. The cranial suture were obliterated, ecto and endo cranial surfaces. Symphygia surface were irregular with formation of rim. The presence of vaginal part in the trunk remnant and female pubic hair were suggestive of female body and remains under examination belonged to main trunk and lower extremities.

The following injuries were noted:--Injury No. 1-cut fracture 12.5 cm. long over left parieto -temporal bone.

Injury No. 2-12 cm. antero-posteriorly cut fracture over occipital bone.

Injury No. 3-Cut fracture-antero-posteriorly over left temporo- occipital bone.

Separation fracture of skull sutures:--1. Sagittal suture-8 cm. antero-posteriorly.

2. Lamdoid suture fracture right side 11 cm.

3. 13. cm. right temporal bone separating temporo- parietal suture.

Incised wound :--1. 20 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep at the level of 2nd lumber vertebrae transversally placed over back of abdomen.

2. Incised wound over front of chest 21 cm. long transversally placed 3' above the breast. The surrounding soft tissues and bony meshes in vicinity of the injury were infiltrated with altered blood.

Postmortem injuries :--1. 22 cm.long over lateral side of right chest wall separating the extremities.

2. 21 cm. left lateral chest wall separating the left upper extremities, the surrounding skin and bones were pale.

In respect to the said dead body, Dr. Y. Nath opined that all the injuries except the injuries, mentioned under the Head 'Postmortem injuries', were ante mortem, cut fractures and incised wounds were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and separation fracture were the result of hard and blunt substance. According to him, dismembered bones mentioned above belonged to one piece of trunk and lower extremities. The stature of the deceased was 5' and 1' with error of 2 to 4 cm. He has stated that the body and dismembered bone belonged to one human female, aged about 50 years (plus-minus 10 years). The death was due to the above noted injuries. The death of the person had taken place within 3 to 4 months from the time of firstexamination of bones on 2nd June, 1999. The Bone Examination Report was marked as Ext. 3/16.

16. Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24) examined the bones of the second body on 2.6.1999 at 10.00 a.m. The dead body was highly decomposed, foul smell adipocere formation over most of the tissues. Soft tissues were missing over upper face, head legs and upper extremities.

Clothing :--Half sleeve green (light) Ganji with monogram 'Kenya Wild Land' with imprint of Lion's head. The Lungi was lying separately which was check of green and white. Right foot was missing. However, the same was received later on 5.6.1999 and exactly tallied with the left foot of the deceased in size, bony contour. Next examination was done on 9.6.1999. Height of the body was measured as 160 cm. (plus-minus 2 cm.).

Bones were listed as below :--1.Skull--one with bony gap.

2. Mandible--one in position with 16 teeth in the socket.

3. Maxilla--one in position 14 teeth in socket. Third molar failed to erupt and there was no space in the socket.

4. Clavicles--2, one in each side.

5. Scapula--2, one of each side.

6. Ribs--left-12 and right-10 (11th and 12th ribs missing).

7. Humorous--2, one on each side. Length 30 cm.

8. Radius--2, one of each side.

9. Ulna--Two-one of each side.

10. Small bones--of hands-five on each right and left side (10 Metacarpal bone- 5 of each side (10) Phalanges-28 bones, 14 of each hand.

11. Femur--2 one of each right and left side.

12. Tibia--2, one of each left and right side.

13. Fibula-- 2, one of each side.

14. Talus and calcanium--one each (two) of right side.

15. Small bones of foot--10 in number-5 tarsal and 5 Metatarsal bone the phalanges were missing.

16. Missing left foot tallies with the bones of right foot and contour in length and size and measured 6 cm. (1st Metatarsal bone).

17. Pelvic bone--Two in number for each left and right side in position.

18. Sacrum one in position.

Vertebral column intact with 24 vertebrae. Penis was in shrunken state and found attached on position. A Tuft of grey and black hairs 4 to 5' long was also received 5.6.1999 sexing character male type was present on all the bones.

Injuries :--1. Cut fracture transversally placed over left front-parietal bone 11 cm. long.

2. Cut fracture over left parietal antero-posterior.

3. Cut fracture 9.5 cm. placed transversally over left fronto parietal bone.

4. 8 cm. antero posteriorly placed over left temporal bone.

5. There was a bony gap over left half of parietal and left temporal bone measuring 13 cm. antero-posteriorly and 9 cm. side to side.

6. There was a crack fracture involving right frontal bone separating the coronal suture 10 cm. long.

7. Zig Zag crack fracture transversally over right temporal bone 8 cm.

8. 14 cm. transversally placed in Zig Zag manner over posterior parietal and right temporal.

9. Crack fracture 7 cm. over lower occipital transversally placed. There was blood infiltration over cut surfaces of bone and surface of skull.

In the opinion of Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24), all the bones belonged to one human female aged about 60 years (plus-mines 10 years). Death was due to above noted head injuries which were ante-mortem in nature. According to him, cut fractures were due to heavy sharp cutting weapon and separation fracture was due to hard and blunt substance. Time since death within three to four months from the date of first examination i.e. on 2.6.1999. The Bone Examination Report has been marked as Ext. 6/2.

17. On the same day i.e., on 2.6.1999 Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24) conducted Bone Examination of the third skeletal and found the followings :

From the bundle of bones, the following bones were isolated which had identical character like length, thickness of the bones, and similarity in contour etc.

1. Femur--2, one of each left and right side.

2. Tibia--2, one of each left and right side.

3. Hip bone--2, one of each side.

4. Radius--one of right side.

Length of Femur--44 cm. Length of Tibia--40 cm. Length of Fibula 39.7 cm. Rest of bones were missing.

Injuries :--No any mechanical injuries were found over the above noted bones.

Clothing :--One Paijama thick in thickness.

The bones were stout, heavier with following character

Pelvic bone--The ischial tuberosity was inverted. But--Public angle was acute ileum bone was sloping. Acetabulum was narrow and deep. There was complete ossification of the bones with symphysis pubis having transverse ridges.

In the opinion of the doctor (PW 24), all the bones belonged to one individual human male aged about 25 years (plus-minus 3 years). According to him, time since death was within 3 to 4 months from the time of first examination, i.e., on 2.6.1999. He has given opinion that the cause of death could not be ascertained due to non-availability of complete bones. According to him, the stature of the person was 5'6' (plus-minus 1'). He has proved his Bone Examination Report which has been marked as Ext. 6/3.

18. The doctor (PW 24) took photographs of all the three skeletonswhich he examined. The writing appearing on all the three photographs have been marked as Exts. 3/16, 3/17 and 3/19.

19. From the evidence of Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24), it is clear that Anita Roy, including all the three persons, died homicidal death. The case relates to murder of Anita Roy, Subhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick. Anita Roy was the mother of Lucky Bhowmick and mother-in-law of Subhendu Bhowmick. She was maternal-grand-mother of the deceased Kalyan Bhowmick. On the basis of Bone Examination, Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24) found one body belonging to a lady aged about 50 years, another of a male aged about 60 years and the third one of a boy aged about 25 years. The age of the victims, namely, Anita Roy, Subhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick, as given in the FIR, tally with the age given by the doctor. The aforesaid facts also go to suggest that remaining unidentified bodies belonged to Subhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick. During cross- examination, PW 24 proved a letter, written by Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bala, Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, MGM College, Jamshedpur, marked as Ext. A, wherein, she has informed the Officer-in-charge of Bistupur Police Station that post-mortem examination is not possible on the four dead bodies, received on 2.6.1999. She had informed the Officer-in-charge that bone examination of all the dead bodies became necessary.

20. Sona Bhowmick alias Nafisha (PW 7) is the own sister of accused Chaitali Bhowmick. No sort of enmity between Sona Bhowmick and the accused Chaitali Bhowmick is there and, as such, without any rhyme and reason a sister can not be thirsty of the blood of her own sister. Common factor exists between both of them i.e., Sona Bhowmick and accused Chaitali Bhowmick, they having married Muslim boys. As such, the evidence of Sona Bhowmick can not be ignored at any point. She (PW 7) in her evidence has stated that her brother Kalyan Bhowmick had attended a reception party in her residence on29.1.1999, which gets support from the evidence of her husband Umar Khan. She had visited the house of her maternal-grand-mother, namely, deceased Anita Roy to the first week of February and had found Chaitali and Rizwan present in the house. She did not find any of the deceased there and her mother's room was locked. Ajit Kumar Pramanik (PW 10), who happens to be the friend of deceased Subhendu Bhowmick, has deposed that Subhendu Bhowmick did not attend his duty after 30.1.1999. Similar is the statement of Ratan Das (PW 11). Both of them, i.e., PWs 10 and 11 are quite independent witnesses, having no concern with the accused. As such, their evidences are quite reliable. Hare Krishna Mahto (PW 14) has deposed that he did not see Subhendu Bhowmick, his wife, son and mother-in-law after January, 1999 in the Ghorabandha house. The aforesaid evidences clearly go to establish that murder of Anita Roy, Subhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick took place in between 29th and 30th of January, 1999. It is further established that two types of instruments, i.e., sharp cutting weapon as well as hard and blunt substance were used for committing the murder of all four and it further suggests that murders were committed by at least two persons.

21. The visceras, belonging to Lucky Bhowmick, were sent to Regional Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Bihar, Ranchi. The report of Asstt. Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Bihar Camp Ranchi, is marked as Ext. 26. It appears from Ext. 26 that viscera were containing thimet, which is commonly used in agriculture as pesticide. Ext. 26 can not be considered in evidence for want of evidence of Dr. Y Nath to the effect that he had preserved the viscera of a dead body of a lady and the same was sent for chemical examination to the Regional Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Bihar, Ranchi.

22. As per the case of the prosecution, the place of occurrence is the house of the informant, located at Ghorabandha, P.S. Govindpur, District-East Singhbhum.

23. The informant (PW 32) has deposed in Pr. 5 of his evidence that he reached Ghorabandha house and saw the gate of the house locked. According to him (PW 32), first he scaled over the boundary wall and went inside the house and thereafter, his wife also entered into the compound of the house, after scaling over the boundary wall. He has stated that he broke opened the lock of the house and then entered into the same. According to him, first of all he entered into the room, which was being used as sleeping room by his brother-in-law, where he found spots of dried blood on the mattress (Toshak) and old bed-sheet. He also found the locker of the almirah opened and costly articles removed. Thereafter, he went on the 1st floor and entered into the room which was occupied by his mother (Anita Roy), where he found that almirah of his mother, kept in that room, was broken and the locker of the said almirah was broken. He has also stated that the glass fitted in the almirah was broken and pieces of glass were scattered on the ground. He also found blood spots on the ground as also on the broken glasses. Thereafter, he along with his wife came down and went towards the septic tank. According to him, when he removed the cap of the septic tank, foul smell came out and he found three or four dead bodies lying inside the tank. The aforesaid evidence of the informant is quite consistent, after cross-examination. Anuradha Roy (PW 9) has supported the aforesaid statement of her husband in her evidence. The I.O. Binod Kumar Singh (PW 34), in course of inspection of the place of occurrence, has also found blood spots on the mattress (Toshak), which was lying on a double bed Palang in the room occupied by deceased Subhendu Bhowmick and deceased Lucky Bhowmick. He also found the doors of almirahs opened and their lockers were opened and damaged. According to him, there were no valuables in the lockers of the almirahs. It transpired to him (PW 34) that the almirahs were opened with the help of some pointed articles. He found Saries and other articles in scattered condition in the almirah. He also found spots of bloodpresent on the floor of the room towards it's eastern-northern corner. The I.O. further inspected the room, occupied by the mother of the informant, namely, Anita Roy, located at the first floor of the building. According to him (PW 34), there is only one room on the Ist floor. In the said room the I.O, found one almirah, whose doors were open. He further found locker of the almirah opened and the glass fitted on the door of the almirah were broken and pieces whereof were scattered on the ground. On the pieces of glass, there were spots of dried blood. Dried blood spots were also present on the floor of the room. In Pr. 10 of his evidence, the I.O. has stated that he seized one mattress (Toshak) with white and green strip, one bed sheet of green and white colour, one personal diary of the accused Chaitali Bhowmick from the sleeping room of deceased Subhendu Bhowmick. He also seized the pieces of broken glass from the room of deceased Anita Roy and prepared seizure list in presence of Hardeo Singh and Pradeep Kumar. He has proved the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext. 20. Seizure list witness Hardeo Singh has been examined as PW 12, who, in his evidence, has supported the statement of the I.O. that on 1.6.1999 at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. one cushion, one Chadar, one diary and some pieces of broken glass were seized by the police from the house of subhendu Bhowmick in his presence. According to him (PW 12), the cushion and bed sheet were containing blood spots. His signature has been marked as Ext. 3/4. The seizure list (Ext. 20) shows that the I.O. seized one blood stained mattress (Toshak) and one bed sheet from the northern room and some small and big pieces of a glass from the room, located on the first floor, which also contained blood stains. The aforesaid seizure were made from the house of deceased Subhendu Bhowmick, located at Ghorabandha.

24. The seized mattress (Toshak) has been marked as Material Ext. V/21. Seized Chadar (bed-sheet) has been marked as Material Ext. V/4. The broken glasses have been marked together as Material Ext. V/20. Three diaries seized from the place ofoccurrence have been marked as Material Exts. VI to VI/2. On examination of broken pieces of glass, it became evident that some of the pieces of glass contained spots of blood like substance. The I.O. sent the cutting of Chadar and Toshak, seized from the sleeping room of deceased Subhendu Bhowmick, for chemical examination to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Beli Road, Patna (Bihar). The carbon copy of the forwarding letter has been marked as Ext. 24. The said letter was forwarded by the CJM, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Ext. 24 shows that cuttings of blood stained Chadar, Toshak and cotton of Toshak were sent for chemical examination.

25. Binod Shankar (PW 31), Retd. Incharge Regional Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi, who was posted as Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, on 4.8.1999, in Pr. 3 of his evidence, has stated that the envelope marked 'L' contained two cloth pieces and a cotton piece which were marked as 'L' to 'L/2'. According to him, the cloth piece said to be Chadar piece measuring 13 cm. x 7 cm. approx, bore reddish, brown stains practically all over it. He has further stated that the cloth piece, marked 'L/1', said to be cushion cover cutting, measuring 17 cm. x 14 cm. bore reddish, brown stains practically all over it. The cotton piece marked 'L/2', measuring 6 cm. x 2 cm., according to him, bore reddish, brown stains all over it. In course of chemical examination. It was found that Exts. L, L/1 and L/2 contained blood. The aforesaid articles were examined by Serologist and the report of the Serologist has been marked as Ext. 15. This Ext. 15 shows that L/l and L/2 contained human blood of AB Origin. Ext. L also contained blood, but it's origin could not be determined because it was disintegrated.

26. The evidence of the informant (PW 32), I.O. (PW 34) and Anuradha Roy (PW 9) clearly establish that all the four dead bodies including that of Anita Roy, were recovered from the pit of the septic tank, located in the back of Ghorabandha house of the informant.

27. Sri K.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, has beenexamined as PW 2 in this case, who in his evidence has stated that on 16.6.1999 he recorded the statements of Mahboob Hussain, Rajiv Kumar Singh @ Mantu Kumar arid Md. Nizam under Section 164, Cr PC, on the direction of the CJM, Jamshedpur. Their statements have been marked as Exts. 1. 1/1, and 1/2. In Pr. 3 of his evidence, he (PW 2) has stated that on 17.6.1999 he recorded the statement of accused Chaitali Bhowmick @ Sontu @ Shehnaz under Section 164. Cr. PC. He has stated that he warned the accused that she is not bound to make confessional statement and if she makes any confessional statement, that can be used as evidence against her and on being satisfied that she is willing to make confessional statement, he recorded her confessional statement. PW 2 has further recorded the statement of accused Saiyad Rizwan on the direction of CJM, on the same day, i.e., on 17.6.1999. According to him, he had also given statutory warning to accused Saiyad Rizwan that he was not bound to make confessional statement and if any confessional statement is made by him, the same can be used against him as evidence and on being satisfied that the accused was voluntarily ready to make confessional statement, he recorded his confessional statement. The confessional statements of both the accused, i.e., Chaitali Bhowmick and Saiyad Rizwan have been marked as Exts. 2 and 2/1. In Pr. 4 of his evidence, he (PW 2) has stated that he also recorded the confessional statement of accused Mahboob Hussain after giving him warning, as required under the law, and on being satisfied that he was willing to make confessional statement voluntarily, he recorded his confessional statement, which has been marked as Ext. 2/2. PW 2 has further stated in Pr. 4 6f his evidence that he recorded the statements of Sazid Khan and Rameshwar Prasad under Section 164, Cr PC as witnesses of the prosecution, whose statements have been marked as Exts. 1/3 and 1/4. The evidence of PW 2 (K.K. Singh) is quite consistent after cross-examination. Exts. 1 to 1/2. 2/2, 1/3 and 1/4 are not substantial piece of evidence, but they areuseful for the purpose of contradiction and corroboration. The confessional statement of Mahboob Hussain can also not be used as substantial piece of evidence in this case, as he has turned as approver and he has been granted pardon by the learned CJM. Exts. 2 and 2/1, the confessional statements of accused Chaitali and Saiyad Rizwan are substantial pieces of evidences, as they have been made voluntarily before a Magistrate. From perusal of evidence of PW 2 it appears that their statements were recorded on 17.6.1999 and from perusal of the records of lower Court, it appears that both the accused were produced before the CJM on 15.6.1999, after the police remand was over and they were sent to jail. They were produced before the Magistrate from jail. As such, any impression of fear created by the police on the minds of both the accused had vanished by the date, their confessional statements were recorded.

28. Sazzad Khan (PW 3) has deposed that Rizwan and his wife Chaitali are known to him. He identified both of them while they were present in the dock. In Pr.2 of his evidence he has stated that on 7th June, 1999 Chaitali and Rizwan had reached his house at about 10.00 p.m. during his absence and when he returned to his house, he saw Rizwan, Chaitali and his child present in his house. According to him. they had reached his house on a Maruti car, bearing Registration No. BR 16C-1911 and Rizwan informed him (PW 3) that the said Maruti car was given to him by his in-laws. In Pr. 3 of his evidence, PW3 has stated that next day, i.e., on 8.6.1999 Rizwan disclosed before him that he had committed murder of the brother, father, mother and maternal-grand-mother of Chaitali because they were not happy with his marriage with Chaitali and were not allowing Chaitali to stay in their house. Rizwan also disclosed to him (PW 3) that he had committed murder of the aforesaid persons in the last week of January and had put the dead bodies in the septic tank and had put chemicals in the tank. He has further stated that he (PW 3), having become afraid and because of the fact that somerelatives had arrived to his house, took Chaitali and Rizwan to the house of Rameshwar Prasad. PW 3 has also stated that he got Chaitali and Rizwan surrendered in the Court on 9.6.1999. Sazzad Khan (PW 3) has been cross-examined at length by the defence lawyer but no major contradiction has appeared in his statement. In course of cross-examination, PW 3 has stated that Rizwan happens to be his relative and he has got no enmity with him.

29. PW 4 Rameshwar Prasad has deposed that on 8.6.1999 Rizwan, Sahid and Chaitali came to his residence with Sazzad Khan (PW 3) and, according to him (PW 4), Chaitali was having a child of six to eight months in her lap. He has stated that Sazzad told him that they were his guests and have come from a far. Sazzad told him (PW 4) that as some guests have arrived at his house, therefore, he had brought these people to his house. PW 4 has stated that he made arrangement for the lodging and fooding of Rizwan, Sahid and Chaitali in his house and during dinner, disclosed before him that he had committed murder of the parents, brother and maternal-grandmother of Chaitali and had put their dead bodies in the septic tank. PW 4 has stated that Rizwan further disclosed him that he had put some chemicals in the septic tank and thereafter, had sealed the same. Rizwan further disclosed to him (PW 4) that they had gone to Lucknow after committing murder. He has stated that he got Chaitali and Rizwan to surrender in the Court on 9.6.1999. He has admitted that his statements were recorded by the Magistrate. He identified his signature appearing on his statements, recorded under Section 164, Cr PC, which have been marked as Exts. 3 to 3/2. He identified Rizwan and Chaitali while they were present in the dock. During cross-examination, he has stated that he and Sazzad Khan are engaged as property dealers for last eight to ten years. In his cross-examination he (Pw 4) further stated that the police had reached to him after 3 or 4 days of the arrival of Rizwan in his house and that Rizwan and Chaitali directly came to the Court from his house andSaiyad Rizwan surrendered in Court on 9.6.1999. The evidences of the aforesaid witnesses are quite reliable.

However, though the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses are reliable, the conviction of the accused cannot be based solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession before these two witnesses, as extra-judicial confession is considered as a weak kind of evidence.

30. Pw 7 (Sona Bhowmick alias Nafisha) has deposed that her brother Kalyan Bhowmick had attended a reception party at her house on 29.1.1999 along with his friend. She has stated that Kalyan returned to his house after having dinner and she along with her husband went to Ghorabandha house with food for her maternal-grand-mother and parents because, they had not attended the party. She has stated that Chaitali came out and took tiffin from her hand and she (PW 7) did not stay there because it was later at night. In Pr. 4 of her evidence, PW 7 has stated that she went to Ghorbandha house in the first week of February and saw Chaitali and Rizwan present there. In Pr. 6 of her evidence, PW 7 has stated that she went to Ghorabandha house of her Nani in the month of March, 1999 and saw the house locked. On the aforesaid point, the evidence of Sona Bhowmick is quite consistent. Sona Bhowmick is the own sister of Chaitali Bhowmick, which Chaitali Bhowmick has admitted in her statement, recorded under Section 313, Cr PC. Thus, a sister can not be thirsty of the blood of her own sister and she will never like to give false evidence against her sister particularly in a case of murder. The evidence of Sona Bhowmick, as such, is quite reliable.

31. PW 10 Ajit Kumar Pramanik, who was an employee of TELCO, where deceased Subhendu Bhowmick was working prior to his homicidal death, has deposed that he as well as Subhendu Bhowmick were working in the same department of TELCO and that Subhendu Bhowmick last attended his office on 30.1.1999. In Pr. 3 of his evidence, PW 10 has stated that on 10th February, 1999 he along with Ratan Das went to thehouse of Subhendu Bhowmick, in order to meet him, the date of his visit may be 13th or 14th February, and called Gopal Da (call name of Subhendu Bhowmick) from the gate, whereupon, Chaitali came out and informed them (PW 10 and Ratan Das) that her father, mother and brother had gone to the village because of the death of grandmother. According to him (PW 10), Chaitali was prepared to give an application on behalf of her father to the company. He has stated that he had all the talks with Chaitali at the gate of the building and he identified Chaitali, while she was present in the dock. This witness (PW 10) has been cross-examined by the defence lawyer at length and during his cross-examination, it has come that the house of deceased Subhendu Bhowmick and the house of this witness (PW 10) are at a distance of 50 to 60 yards. According to him (PW 10), he always had meeting with Subhendu Bhowmick whenever he used to attend his duty and Subhendu Bhowmick was also on visiting terms to his house. The evidence of this witness (PW 10) is quite reliable as he is quite an independent witness. The evidence of this witness (PW 10) has been corroborated by PW 11 (Ratan Das), who also had visited the house of Subhendu Bhowmick along with PW 10, when Chaitali had talked to them at the gate.

32. Ratan Das (PW 11) also stated that Subhendu Bhowmick attended his duty lastly on 30th January, 1999 and thereafter, he did not resume his duty. He has stated that he had gone to the house of Subhendu Bhowmick on 14th or 15th February and had met the younger daughter of Subhendu. He has stated that he as well as Pramanik enquired from the younger daughter of Subhendu as to where his father had gone and on this, she replied that her parents had gone to Ranaghat because of the death of Nani MAA He identified Chaitali Bhowmick as the younger daughter of Subhendu Bhowmick, while she was present in the Court. During cross-examination, he (PW 11) has stated that the Sala of Subhendu Bhowmick, who is a Medical Practitioner at Ghatshila, is notknown to him. He has stated that for the first time he had come to the Court to give evidence on receiving summons of the Court. The evidence of PW 11 is also quite consistent after cross-examination. There is an evidence of Tapan Ghosh (PW 1) that when he went to supply milk on 28.2.1999, he found the house locked. Here reference of the evidence of Abdul Hadi (PW 30), who is the owner of Hotel Awadh, Lucknow, is essential. In his evidence he (PW 30) has deposed that Jamshedpur Police had seized his Hotel's register in his presence as well as in presence of Mazhar Faruqui. The signature of this witness on the seizure list has been marked as Ext. 3/34 and the signature of Mazhar Faruqui has been marked as Ext. 3/43. He has proved his writing on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext. 3/44. He has deposed that visitors' register is maintained in normal course of business and customers write down their names and addresses themselves in the register. The register has been marked as Ext. 10. According to him, visitors' register's entry Nos. 548 and 927 relate to the stay of Rizwan and Shahnaz Rizwan in his hotel. From the evidence of this witness as well as from Ext. 10, it is clear that accused Rizwan and Chaitali Bhowmick reached Lucknow on 28.2.1999 and made their entry in the said Hotel's register at 7.00 on 28.2.1999 and stayed there till 4.00 p.m. of 8.3.1999 and again from 14.3.1999 to 30.3.1999. The entry No. 927 which relates to the stay of Md. Saiyad Rizwan and Mrs. Shehnaz Rizwan in the Hotel 'Awadh', Lal Bagh, Hazratganj, shows that they had reached there from Ranchi. The date and time of arrival is mentioned as 28.2.1999, 7.00 p.m. and the date of departure is mentioned as 7.00 p.m. of 8.3.1999. The aforesaid evidence gives full support to the testimony of Tapan Ghosh (PW 1) that when he went to supply milk to Bhowmick family on 28.2.1999, he found the house locked. So the prosecution has ably proved that Chaitali and Rizwan stayed in Ghorabandha house during the period from 29.1.1999 to 27.2.1999.

33. Binod Kumar Singh (PW 34), I.O. of this case, has deposed in Pr. 11 of his evidence that he took accused Chaitali and Rizwan on seven days' police remand with the permission of the Court. The order sheet dated 9.6.1999 of the lower Court records show that the learned CJM gave Saiyad Rizwan @ Soni and Chaitali Bhowmick @ Sontu along with her child on police remand for seven days and after police remand, both of them were produced before the CJM on 15.6.1999. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313, Cr PC have admitted that they were taken on police remand by the I.O. In Pr. 12 of his evidence, the I.O. has deposed that on 3.6.1999 Saiyad Rizwan and Chaitali Bhowmick made their confessional statements, which were noted down by him separately. He has proved the recorded confessional statements of both the accused, marked as Exts. 20 and 20/1. According to the I.O., confessional statements of Chaitali and Rizwan contain their signatures. He has stated that on the basis of the confessional statements, he recovered the following articles from Sirhi Ghar of Ghorabandha house of the informant, kept in an old trunk and concealed under useless household articles :

(i) Two covers of Rajai of white colour.

(ii) One Dari of cream colour,

(iii) Three pillows,

(iv) Two Masland.

(v) Two woolen ladies shawl and many other new clothes.

(vi) One nighty of bottle green colour like Kurti and.

(vii) One daw.

According to the I.O., the aforesaid articles contained dried blood like spots. He has further stated that accused Chaitali and Rizwan pointed out a place under a mango tree from where he recovered a polythin bag concealed under the sand which contained large number of clothes, containing blood spots. The I.O., also found one Awanti Moped, kept in the outer room of the house, which he seized in presenceof Shashi Kumar and Md. Amauddin and prepared seizure list. The seizure list contains the signature and writings of Rizwan and signature of Chaitali. The seizure list has been proved as Ext. 22. The I.O. handed over all the seized articles to I/c Malkhana, for keeping them in safe custody. Chopar has been marked as Material Ext. IV. Other clothes have been marked as material Exts. V to V/19.

34. PW 15, Shashi Kumar, an independent witness, in his evidence has supported the seizure of the aforesaid articles at the instance of Chaitali and Rizwan from the places, as stated by the I.O. in his evidence. He (PW 15) has admitted his signature appearing on the seizure list, marked as Ext. 3/7. The evidence of PW 15 is quite consistent after cross-examination. To a Court's question, he has stated that he means the house of Subhendu Bhowmick by saying it the house of Chaitali Bhowmick and Rizwan, while they were present in the Court. He also identified the writing and signature of Rizwan and Chaitali Bhowmick appearing on seizure list, marked as Exts. 3/7 and 3/8 respectively. Having been cross-examined, at length by the defence lawyer, no major contradiction has appeared in the evidence of this witness (PW 15). He has stated that when the police had reached the house of Subhendu Bhowmick with the accused, he was sitting in the house of MLA Arjun Munda, which is located at a distance of 10 to 15 steps from the house of Subhendu Bhowmick.

35. PW 16 is also consistent after cross-examination by the defence lawyer. From perusal of the order dated 15.6.1999 of the Court of CJM, it appears that both the accused, namely, Saiyad Rizwan and Chaitali were produced after their police remand was over. The aforesaid order sheet clearly speaks that the accused persons did not make any complaint either against the Escort Party or against any other Police Officer, which clearly Indicates that the I.O. did not apply third degree method in procuring confessional statements of the accused, leading to recovery of so many incriminating articles. PW 33 has provedMalkhana Register, showing deposit of seized articles in the Thana Malkhana. The relevant portion of the Malkhana Register is marked as Ext. 14.

36. The I.O. has further deposed in Pr. 12 of this evidence that he recovered five bottles of acid, out of which four were empty, two plastic bags of bleaching powder (one empty and other partially empty), four bottles of phenyl at the instance of accused Chaitali and Rizwan on 14.6.1999 from the Ghorabandha house of the informant, which were kept and concealed in broken wooden articles at a place, located in the eastern-southern corner of the dinning hall. The I.O. also prepared seizure list of the aforesaid articles in presence of Pradeep Kumar and Sanjay Mishra. The seizure list has been marked as Ext. 20/1 and Material Exhibits have been marked as Material Exts. VII to VII/5. However, he has stated that three bottles could not be produced from the Malkhana. PW 20 (seizure list witness) has supported the seizure of the aforesaid articles by the I.O. from the house of Subhendu Bhowmick on 14.6.1999 at about 9.00 or 9.30 p.m. at the instance of accused Chaitali and Rizwan. PW 20 has stated that Daroga Jee had prepared seizure list on which he had put his signature and admitted his signature appearing on the seizure list, marked as Ext. 3/12. The evidence of Sanjay Mishra is quite consistent after cross-examination but the seizure of the aforesaid articles at the instance of the accused appears doubtful, in view of the fact that seizure list (Ext. 22/1) does not contain the signature of accused Saiyad Rizwan and Chaitali Bhowmick.

37. The I.O. in his evidence has stated that he sent cuttings of all the blood stained clothes and Chopar for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory through CJM, Jamshedpur. The carbon copy of the forwarding report is Ext. 24, which shows that the following articles were sent to the Director, FSL, Beli Road, Patna (Bihar) :--

(i) A and A/1--Two cutting of Razai and Blanket, containing blood spots.

(ii) B--Cutting of Dari of cream colour, containing blood.

(iii) C, C/1 and C/2--Cuttings of two ladies woolen shawl and one cutting of old cloth, having blood stain.

(iv) D--Cutting of green nighty, having blood stain.

(v) D/l--Cutting of Bra, having blood stain.

(vi) E--Cutting of two pillow cover, having blood stains.

(vii) F--Cutting of pillow cover, having blood stain.

(viii) G--Cutting of pillow cover, having blood stain.

(ix) H--Cutting of Masland, having blood stains.

(x) I--Cutting of Masland, having blood stains.

(xi) J--Rusted Iron Daw, having blood stains.

(xii) K--Cutting of old cloth, having blood stains.

(xiii) K/1--Cutting of woolen shawl with blood stains.

(xiv) K/2--Cutting of Fullpant with blood stains.

(xv) K/3--Cutting of Gunny bag with blood stains.

(xvi) K/4--Cutting of bag with blood stains.

(xvii) K/5--Cotton, containing blood stains.

(xviii) L--Cutting of bed-sheet with blood stains.

(xix) L/1--Cutting of Toshak (mattress) cover with blood stains.

(xx) L/2--Blood stained cotton of Toshak (mattress).

The articles, mentioned in 'L', 'L/1' and 'L/2' were not seized at the instance of the accused persons, as mentioned by the I.O., rather they were seized on 1.6.1999 by him, when he (I.O.) inspected the place of occurrence for the first time.

38. PW 31 (Deputy Director, FSL. Patna) has stated that on 23.6.1999 Material Exhibits were received by him through theforwarding letter of CJM, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. According to him, Material Exhibits were in ten envelopes and in a paper packet. He has given the following evidence :

'Marking A and A/1 was opened which contained one old cloth piece marked A said to be Rajai cover piece measuring 22 cm. x 12 cm. approximately. The entire piece bore reddish brown stains practically all over it. Another cloth kept in envelope A/1, said to be blanket cover piece measuring 13 cm. x 12 cm. approximately, also bore reddish brown stains, practically all over it. The envelope marked 'B', contained an old cream colour carpet piece measuring 16 cm. x 12 cm. approximately. It also bore reddish brown stain practically all over it. Envelope marked C, C/1 and C/2 contained some cloth pieces, said to be ladies woolen Chadar and old and new cloth pieces measuring 18 cm. x 18 cm. These also bore reddish brown stains practically all over them. The envelope marked D and C/1 contained three cloth pieces which were marked as D and D/1 respectively. Two cloth pieces marked D said to be nighty pieces measuring 18 cm. x 24 cm. and 28 cm. x 28 cm. approximately. They bore reddish brown stains practically all over them. The cloth piece marked D/l said to be bra piece measuring 10 cm. x 9 cm. approximately bore brownish stain only. The envelope marked E contained a cloth piece said to be pillow cover cutting measuring 15 cm. x 12 cm. approximately bearing reddish brown stains practically all over it. The envelope marked F, contained two cloth pieces (on one side some small pieces of cotton were adhering) said to be pillow cover cutting measuring 18.5 cm. x 16 cm. and 18 cm. x 4 cm. These bore reddish brown stains practically all over them. The envelope marked 'G' contained a cloth piece said to be pillow cover cutting measuring 17.5 cm. x 15 cm. approximately. It bore reddish brown stains practically all over it. The envelope marked H-1 contained two cloth pieces said to be Masland pieces, marked as H and 1 respectively. The cloth piece marked H measuring 14 cm. x 14 cm. bore reddish brown stains all over it. The cloth piece marked 1 measuring 16 cm. x 11 cm. bore reddish brown stains practically all over it. The packet marked J contained an old rusted iron Dab (a sharp cutting weapon), measuring 34 cm. including iron handle X 10 cm. It bore a small dot reddish brown stain only. The envelope marked 1 to K/5 contained some cloth pieces marked K to K/5 respectively. Two old cloth pieces marked K measuring 16.5 cm. approximately. It bore reddish brown stains practically all over it. The old cloth pieces said to be of woolen Chadar marked K/1 measuring 8 cm. x 12 cm. approximately bore reddish brown stains practically all over it. The old cloth piece said to be full-pants cutting marked K/2 measuring 11 cm. x 1 cm. bore a dot of reddish brown stain only. The old sack piece marked K/3 measuring 10 cm. x 4 cm. approximately bore reddish brown stain practically all over it. The old sack piece said to be cutting of bag made of sack marked K/4 measuring 8.5 cm. x 9.5 cm. approximately bore a dot of reddish brown stain only. The cloth piece said to be shirt cutting marked K/5 measuring 9 cm. x 4 cm. approximately bore reddish brown stain practically all over it. The envelope marked L contained two cloth pieces and a cotton piece, marked L to L/2. The cloth piece said to be Chadar piece measuring 13 cm. x 7 cm. approximately bore reddish brown stains practically all over it. The cloth piece marked L/1 said to be cushion cover cutting measuring 17 cm. x 14 cm. bore reddish brown stains practically all over it. The cotton piece marked L/2, measuring 6 cm. x cm. bore reddish brown stains all over it. In course of chemical examination of the aforesaid exhibits the following results were found :

1. Blood was detected all over on the Exhibits, marked A, A/1, B, C, C/1.C/2. D, E, F, G, H, I, K, K/1, K/3, K/5, L, L/1 and L/2.

2. Blood detected on the Exhibits, marked J. K/2 and K/4 were too small for serological examination.

3. No blood could be detected on the Exhibits, marked D/1.

4. Serologist's report on original groups of blood would follow.'

PW 31 has proved his report, which is in five pages and the same has been marked as Ext. 11.

39. Ext. 15 is the report of the Serologist, which shows that all material articles went to the Director, FSL, Patna, contained blood. Most of the material articles contained human blood. The origin of Blood on C, C/1, C/2, E, K, L could not be determined because blood found on them had disintegrated. The human blood found on other articles was of B, A and AB groups.

40. The cuttings, sent for examination, had returned from the office of the Director, FSL, in sealed cover and the same was lying in the Court. The P.P. did not get the seal cover of the box opened and exhibited them as Materials Exhibits. Material Exhibits produced in Court out of which cuttings were taken, were examined by the Court and compared with the description given of the cuttings sent for chemical examination by PW 31. It clearly shows that PW 31 examined the same cuttings of clothes which were taken out from the Material Exhibits produced in Court.

41. According to the prosecution, Videocon Washing Machine, T.V. set and V.C.P., which were used in the Ghorabandha house of the informant by his mother, sister, brother-in-law and Bhagina were recovered from the residential premises of the accused Chaitali Bhowmick and Saiyad Rizwan at Lucknow.

42. A letter was also seized by the I.O. from the said premises which, according to the prosecution, speaks volumes about the involvement of Chaitali and Rizwan in commission of murder of Anita Roy, Lucky Bhowmick, Subhendu Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick.

43. Vinod Kumar Singh (PW 34) in Pr. 18 of his evidence has stated that in course of investigation, it came to light that accused Chaitali and Rizwan had stayed at House No. 50-C, Shringar Nagar, Bhatia Complex, Lucknow. He has stated that he obtained Search Warrant from the Court of CJM, Jamshedpur and went to Krishna Nagar Police Station on 15.7.1999 and talked to I/C Inspector Virendra Nath Singh and called the informant by telephone, as he was also staying at Lucknow that time. According to him (PW 34) he reached House No. 50-C, Shringar Nagar belonging to Satish Chandra Bhatia along with Incharge Inspector of Krishna Nagar Police Station, armed forces and the informant. He has stated that the house of late Satish Chandra Bhatia faces towards west. He has stated that he searched the room located on the upper floor of the house of late Bhatia in presence of Prashant Kumar Bhatia and Anil Kumar and in course of search, one Videocon 200 E Washing Machine, BPL India-12 Programme Colour T.V., V.C.P. of Phunai Company and a letter written to Deputy Manager, TELCO, were found. He seized the aforesaid articles and prepared seizure list in his pen and signature. According to him, the seizure list contains the signatures of Seizure List Witnesses Anil Kumar and Prashant Bhatia. The seizure list has been marked as Ext. 22/3. The I.O. identified Material Ext. 1 (VCP), Material Ext. II (BPL TV) and Material Ext. III (Videocon Washing Machine) and testified that he seized the aforesaid articles.

He also identified Ext. 12 (letter addressed to the Dy. Manager, TELCO) and stated that he had seized the aforesaid letter from the room. The I.O. has stated that he handed over seized VCP, Videocon Washing Machine and TV to the informant on his Zimmanama (Ext. 13), which bears the signature of the Officer-in-Charge of Krishna Nagar Police Station, Lucknow, Inspector B.N. Singh. Signature of Shri B.N. Singh appearing on Ext. 13 has been marked as Ext. 23.

44. The informant (PW 32) has supported the evidence of the I.O. regardingsearch and seizure. In Pr. 10 of his evidence, PW 32 has stated that he had gone to Lucknow with his wife in the last week of June, 1990 and in middle week of July, he got a call from Krishna Nagar Police Station, Lucknow and accordingly, went there, where he saw the Police Officers of Govindpur Police Station and Krishna Nagar Police Station present. He has stated that he went to the house of Bhatia Jee from where a Videocon Washing Machine, BPL TV, VCP of Phunai Company and a letter were seized by the police. He identified Videocon Washing Machine, TV and VCP (Material Exts. I, II and III). He also identified the writing of the application, addressed to the Dy. Manager, TELCO, to be in the writing of the accused Chaitali Bhowmick. The application has been marked as Ext. 12 He has stated that the Material Exts. I, II and III belonged to him, which he had given to his mother after purchase. He also produced the original cash memo of the purchases of TV from Sachdeva Sales. The cash memo granted by Sachdeva Sales has been marked as Ext. X/15 for identification,

45. PW 29 (Prashand Bhatia) is the owner of House No. 50- Chaitali, Shringar Nagar, P.S.-Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, who in Pr. 1 of his evidence has stated that Chaitali and Rizwan occupied upper floor of his house in the capacity of tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 2500/-, in the last of March, 1999 and continued to remain there for about three months. He identified both Chaitali and Rizwan while they were present in the dock. In Pr. 2 of his evidence, PW 29 has stated that Jamshedpur Police and Lucknow Police had searched the portion of his house in which Chaitali and Rizwan used to reside. He has further stated that the police had seized Washing Machine, TV and VCP, including some other things. He has admitted in his evidence that a letter was also seized. According to him (PW 29), the seizure list was prepared by the police in his presence as well as in presence of his Driver Anil Kumar, who has left his job. He identified his writing and signature appearing on theseizure list which has been marked as Ext. 3/39. He also identified signature of Anil Kumar on the seizure list, marked as Ext. 3/40. He identified the Washing Machine (Material Ext. I) and stated that it was seized by the police. Regarding TV and VCP, he showed his unableness as to whether they were seized or not. His evidence is quite consistent after cross-examination. He is an independent witness from Luck-now, having no interest in the result of this case and, as such, his testimony inspires confidence in full measure.

46. Chaitali Bhowmick in her confessional statement (Ext. 2) has stated that her maternal-grand-mother had issued a cheque of Rs. 1,000/- to be drawn on Account No. 7436 of Canara Bank, Birsanagar Branch and she converted the aforesaid cheque into a cheque of Rs. 71,000/- and encashed it.

47. PW 27 (V. Venkatramaiah) is Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Ranchi, who was posted as Sr. Manager, TELCO Colony Branch of Canara Bank on 3.4.1999. In his evidence, he has stated that this is a cheque of Rs. 71,000/-, which was encashed on 24.11.1997 from Saving Bank A/C No. 7463, standing in the joint names of A.C. Roy, Mrs. Anita Roy and Mrs. Lucky Bhowmick. He has stated that Chaitali Bhowmick received the amount of the cheque from the Canara Bank. The signature of Anita Rakshit, Officer of Canara Bank, appearing on the cheque has been marked as Ext. 3/31. He has stated that A/Chaitali No. 7463 of TELCO Branch, Canara Bank, stands in the joint names of A.C. Roy, Anita Roy and Lucky Bhowmick. According to him, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn on 4.2.1999 from the aforesaid Account by a cheque (marked Ext. X/3 for identification). He has deposed that the money was withdrawn in the names of Sona Bhowmick and Anita Roy. PW 27 produced a cheque dated 27.4.1998 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- which has been marked as Ext. X/4 for identification. Signature of Anirudh Bakshi, an officer of the Bank, has been marked Ext. 3/33. He produced another cheque by which a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was drawn on3.2.1999 from Account No. 7463, standing in the joint names of A.C. Roy, Anita Roy and Lucky Bhowmick. The cheque has been marked as Ext. X/5 for identification and signature of Bank's officer Anirudh Bakshi has been marked as Ext. 3/34.

48. PW 27 has produced two other cheques also which have been marked as Exts. X/6 and X/7 for identification. Ext. X/7 is not relevant because withdrawal of money by the said cheque has been made prior to the occurrence i.e., on 8.6.1998. Withdrawal of Rs. 11,800/- has been made on 3.2.1999 by Ext. X/6 (for identification) from A/C No. 6348, standing in the name of deceased Lucky Bhowmick. PW 27 has produced specimen signature of Account Holders of A/C Nos. 6348 and 7463, which have been marked as Exts. X/8 to X/12 for identification. In Pr. 8 of his evidence, PW 27 has stated that this application has been filed by Sona Bhowmick, Anita Roy, Lucky Bhowmick and Sontu Bhowmick on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was sanctioned against the Bank Deposits as security and Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn. The signature of Maheshwari Pradhan, an officer of the Bank, on the printed application has been marked as Ext. 3/37.

49. In course of cross-examination, PW 27 has stated that he was the Incharge of TELCO Colony Branch of Canara Bank. He has further stated that he can not say as to who had withdrawn the money from the bank.

50. PW 21 is Ravindra Nath Malakar, Goldsmith by profession. He is acquainted with maternal-grand-mother of accused Chaitali Bhowmick. In his evidence, recorded on 20.7.2000, he has stated that Amresh Chandra Roy was known to him and Lucky Bhowmick as the daughter of Amresh Chandra Roy. He has stated that Chaitali is the daughter of Lucky Bhowmick. This witness went near the dock and identified Chaitali as the daughter of Lucky. He has deposed that Chaitali had approached him about a year ago along with Bala, Mukut, Umbrella and Bhagwan Thakur Jee to sell them to which he melted and valued the price of the gold Rs.16,000/- to Rs. 17,000/-. He paid Rs. 7,000/- as first instalment as he had only that amount at that time and after five or six days he paid Rs. 10,000/- to Chaitali. In course of his cross- examination, he has stated that he is engaged in the business of goldsmith since 1948 and he knew Chaitali since her childhood, who used to reside previously at Ambagan along with her maternal- grand-father. He has also stated in his cross-examination that the father of Lucky Bhowmick resided at Ambagan for about thirty years and that her parents were residing at Ambagan prior to their shifting to Ghorabandha house. It appears from the evidence of PW 21 that he had business dealings with the father of the deceased Lucky Bhowmick while he was residing at Ambagan, Jamshedpur and the business contact discontinued after the father of deceased Lucky Bhowmick shifted to Ghorabandha house. In Pr. 5 he has stated that he was called by mother of Lucky to Ghorabandha but he did not go there. The evidence of PW 21 is quite consistent and reliable. From his evidence it appears that accused Chaitali had approached him for selling Bala, Mukut, Umbrella and God Thakur Jee, made of gold, about a year before the evidence of this witness. In her confessional statement, Chaitali has admitted that she had married Rizwan in 1996 by converting herself to a Muslim and changed her name from Chaitali Bhowmick to Shehnaz. Possession of ornaments, meant for God, by Chaitali goes a long way to suggest that Chaitali had removed them from the house of the informant and, as such, there can not be any question that Chaitali after professing the religion of Islam, purchased the aforesaid articles and thereafter, sold the same to PW 21.

51. In course of investigation, the I.O. seized a Maruti Van bearing Registration No. BR-16C-9911 from the garage of Babu Painter, belonging to accused Saiyad Rizwan, who has not disputed his ownership regarding the same and has filed an application for release of it, authorizing his mother to receive the same. Seizure list of the vehicle has been marked as Ext. 22/2.PWs 18 and 19 have supported the seizure of the aforesaid Maruti Van by the police on 14.6.1999.

52. Ajay Gandhi (PW 25), erstwhile owner of Maruti Van No. BR- 16C-9911, has deposed that he has sold the same to Rizwan in the month of the February, 1999 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and he handed over all the documents relating to it to Saiyad Rizwan. His evidence is quite consistent during cross-examination and there appears no reason for him to give false evidence against the accused.

53. The aforesaid evidence clearly indicates that money was withdrawn from Canara Bank in the month of February, 1999 and Rizwan purchased the Maruti Van in the same month of 1999. As such, it can safely be held that Chaitali having forged cheques and withdrawn Rs. 71,000/- on 24.11.1997, Rs. 1,500/- on 3.2.1999, Rs. 40,000/- on 4.2.1999 and Rs. 11,800/- on 3.2.1999, from the account of Anita Roy, A.C. Roy and Lucky Bhowmick, the prosecution has succeeded to prove the motive of the accused in committing murders aforesaid, in order to misappropriate their property for their own use.

54. During investigation the I.O. seized the Visitors Register of Raj Hotel, Jugsalai. PW 32, the owner of the hotel, has deposed that the police seized Visitors' Register of his hotel on 4.7.1999 and prepared seizure of the same in his presence. He identified his signature appearing on it, which has been marked as Ex. 3/15. PW 23, Subal Chandradeo, is the Manager of Raj Hotel, who has deposed that Saiyad Rizwan had reached his hotel along with his wife and a child on 21.5.1999 at 9.45 p.m. and stayed till 9.45 p.m. of 30.5.1999. He has proved the entry of Visitor's Register (Ext. 5) and stated that it is in the writing of Chaitali and bears the signature of Rizwan (Ext. 3/14). This witness has identified both Chaitali and Rizwan, which they were present in the dock. He identified his signature (Ext. 2/15) on the seizure list. The evidence of PWs 22 and 23 are quite consistent after cross-examination.

55. PW 28, Shri Amarendra Kumar Singh, is the CJM, Jamshedpur, who has deposed that Binod Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector, filed an application on 3.8.1999 in the case for making Mahboob Hussain as approver, who was produced before him on 9.8.1999 from Ghaghidih Jail, Jamshedpur, in compliance of production warrant dated 5.8.1999. PW 28 has proved the tender of pardon, extended to Mahboob Hussain, in writing (Ext. 8), which the accused has accepted. PW 28 recorded the statement of Mahboob Hussain on 9.8.1999 under Section 306, Cr PC as a witness, which has been marked as Ext. 9. In Pr. 2, PW 28 deposed about the commitment of the case of the Court of Sessions but the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge returned the records vide order dated 9.12.1999 due to some legal defects, while granting pardon. PW 28 again extended pardon to accused Mahboob Hussain, which he accepted in writing and gave in writing that he will disclose the true facts of the case before all the Courts. He has proved his signature appearing on Ext. 8/1, which has been marked as Ext. 3/38. After granting pardon, PW 28 again recorded the statement of Mahboob Hussain under Section 306, Cr PC on 12.1.2000. He also proved the statement of Mahboob Hussain, recorded under Section 306, Cr PC, marked as Ext. 9/1. He has also stated that Mahboob Hussain signed on Ext. 9/1 in his presence and thereafter, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 12.1.2000.

56. Shri K.K. Singh J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur, has recorded the confessional statement (Ext. 1) of accused Mahboob Hussain on 16.6.1999. On 5.8.1999 the I.O. of the case filed a petition before the CJM, Jamshedpur, for tendering pardon to accused Mahboob Hussain. By the aforesaid order learned Judicial Magistrate tendered pardon to Mahboob Hussain on the condition of his disclosing the whole circumstances within his knowledge, relating to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abater in commission thereof. As per his order dated 9.8.1999, Mahboob Hussain wasproduced before the Court of CJM, Jamshedpur, on 9.8.1999. Mahboob Hussain was ready to speak truth, relating to the present case, and accordingly, his statement was recorded by the CJM under Section 306, Cr PC, after warning, as required before recording the statement under Section 164, Cr PC by a Magistrate. The accused was remanded to custody till 21.8.1999, charge-sheet was submitted on 23.8.1999 and the CJM took cognizance of the offences and vide order dated 31.8.1999 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, after supplying police papers to accused Chaitali @ Sontu @ Shehnaz and accused Mahboob Hussain. Thereafter, the case was registered as ST No. 356 of 1999 and was transferred to the Court of 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur Both sides were heard on the point of charge on 9.12.1999 in ST No. 356 of 1999 and it was detected that the learned CJM granted pardon to Mahboob Hussain on the condition that he would disclose truth before the CJM and would conceal nothing. The CJM, having treated Mahboob Hussain as an accused, even after grant of pardon to him, had supplied police papers at the time of commitment of the case. It also transpired that accused Saiyad Rizwan was not supplied the police papers and, as such, violation of Section 207, Cr PC was there. In that background, the lower Court records were sent to the Court of CJM, Jamshedpur, on 13.12.1999.

57. Thereafter, again the learned CJM committed the case to the Court of Sessions afresh, in accordance with law as also after extending police papers etc. to all the accused persons, and case was registered as ST No. 66 of 2000 by the learned Sessions Judge and was transferred to, the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge for trial and disposal.

58. PW 26 is the approver Mahboob Hussain, who has deposed in his evidence that Rizwan met him at Kharangajhar on 1.2.1999 at about 9.30 p.m. and told him that he wanted some help from him for doing some work. Rizwan having known tohim from earlier, he (PW 26) agreed to do the work. PW 26 reached the Chowk of Kharangajhar Market where Chaitali was standing with a bag. Thereafter, Chaitali and Rizwan proceeded for Ghorabandha by Moped and he (PW 26) followed them, walking with the brother of Rizwan, named Sahid. When he (PW 26) reached and entered the house, where Chaitali and Rizwan had already reached, he detected some foul smell and Rizwan told Chaitali to close the door from inside. PW 26 sat in the house of Chaitali and took rice and chicken at dinner with them. Late in the night, Rizwan opened the lock of a room, located in the side, where a dead body was lying on the double bed Palang and he was asked by Rizwan to remove it. First of all, he (PW 26) declined to do the work but on the threat given by Rizwan that the fifth dead body will be yours, he accompanied Rizwan, who took him to the room of the first floor where three dead bodies were lying. PW 26 along with Sahid and Rizwan removed the dead body of the father of Chaitali about whom he came to know from Rizwan from the ground floor room and put it in the septic tank. According to him (PW 26), there was mark of injury on the head of the dead body. Thereafter, the dead bodies of Chaitali's mother and brother were dragged from upper floor and were put in the septic tank. Lastly the dead body of Chaitali's Nani was brought from the first floor of the building and was put into the septic tank. All the dead bodies, lying on the first floor, were first tied with the rope and then dragged upto the septic tank and it was 4.30 a.m. by which time all the dead bodies were put in the septic tank. After two days, Rizwan met him at Kharangajha and gave Rs. 100/- for bringing caustic and assured him that nothing will happen as he had put bleaching powder, caustic and acid in the septic tank. PW 26 purchased five packets of caustic and gave the same to Rizwan. According to PW 26 Rizwan purchased 10 Kgs. of cement and went away. He had also met with Sahid, who told him not to disclose anything to anyone because his photograph had been taken. In Pr. 2 PW 26has deposed that he disclosed about the occurrence to his friends Mintu and Nizam, as he was very nervous, who advised him to disclose the same to the police. However, he did not do so out of fear of being involved in the case. After 16 to 17 days of the occurrence, PW 26 went to the house of Chaitali, where Rizwan was not available and on enquiry about Rizwan from Chaitali, Chaitali wanted to give him a golden chain for not disclosing about the incident. He left the place after leaking the air out of all the four wheels of the Maruti Van having Registration No. BR-16C-9911, standing in front of Chaitali's Ghorabandha house, so that they may not flee away. On the next day, he again went to the house of Chaitali and found that Maruti Van was not standing there and the house was locked. He identified both Chaitali and Rizwan, while they were present in the Court. In his evidence, PW 26 admitted that his confessional statement was recorded by the Magistrate and tender of pardon was extended to him, to which he accepted. He admitted that Ext. 8/1 is in his writing and under his signature. PW 26 has been cross-examined at length and during his cross-examination, he has stated that he was in jail for sixteen days with regard to a complaint case, filed against him. He has stated about the friendship with Mintu and Nizam for last three years and in Pr. 12 of his evidence, he has spoken about his acquaintance with Rizwan from 1996. He has also shown his knowledge that Rizwan used to represent Jamshedpur in Cricket, In Pr. 16, he has stated that when he returned from Ghorabandha house next day in the morning, he even did not disclose about removal of the dead bodies to his mother, on being enquired into by her about his whereabouts in the night. He even did not disclose about his participation in removal of the dead bodies to his brothers also. PW 26 did not Lake meal for two days after his alleged participation and told his mother that because of abdominal disorder, he was not taking meal.

In Pr. 17 of the evidence, he (PW 26) has given complete description of the placeof occurrence, i.e., Ghorabandha house, which is exactly the same, as given by the I.O. in his evidence. The evidence of PW 26 is quite consistent after cross- examination.

59. The details of P.O., given by the approver (PW 26), goes to show that he had visited the Ghorabandha house of the informant and this evidence of approver has remained consistent during cross-examination. The confessional statement of Chaitali Bhowmick (Ext. 2) also supports the evidence of PW 26 (approver) at many material points. Chaitali Bhowmick, in her confessional statement, has admitted the friendship of her husband with Mahboob Hussain since his childhood. In Pr. 2, she has also admitted the fact that Rajiv @ Mantu and Md. Nizam used to meet them off and on in the market. She also spoke about the threat given to her husband and subsequently to herself by Mahboob Hussain, Mintu and Nizam, for Rs. 50,000/-and on refusal by them (Chaitali and Rizwan), they leaked out the air of the wheels of car so that they may not go anywhere. This statement of Chaitali Bhowmick (Ext. 2) clearly shows that Mahboob Hussain, Mintu and Nizam, in the form of reward for the work done by Mahboob Hussain, were extorting money. No person will demand money etc. from other person without any rhyme and reason. As such, the statement of Chaitali Bhowmick, recorded under Section 164, Cr PC also suggests that Mahboob, although an approver, is a trustworthy witness.

60. PW 5 is Rajiv Kumar Singh alias Mintu Kumar Singh. Although in the deposition of PW 5, it has not come that the alias name of Rajiv Kumar Singh is Mintu Kumar Singh, the said fact has come in his statement under Section 164, Cr PC. He has deposed that Mahboob Hussain, his friend, met him at Kharangajhar Market on 9.2.1999 and he (PW 5) found him (Mahboob Hussain) sad and afraid and on his query, he disclosed him about his participation in removing the dead bodies at the Sasural of Rizwan. In Pr. 2 of his evidence, PW 5, has stated that after two or four days when he was talking with Nizam,Mahboob reached there and reiterated the incident to Nizam. In Pr. 3 he has stated that he went to the In-laws' house of Rizwan on 25th or 26th February, 1999 and called Rizwan, who was not available in the house, and then he told Rizwan's wife as to why they were terrorizing Mahboob, whereupon Rizwan's wife offered a golden chain. Thereafter, Mahboob leaked out the air of all the wheels of the car, standing there, in order to obstruct Chaitali and Rizwan from fleeing away. On 16th June, he had given his statement before the Magistrate. The evidence of PW 5 is quite consistent after cross-examination. Md. Nizam was also produced in the Court as a witness but he had been tendered.

61. From the evidence of Dr. Y. Nath (PW 24), who examined the dead bodies, and the evidence of other witnesses, as discussed above, it is clear that the dead bodies were of Anita Roy, Shubhendu Bhowmick. Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Roy, all of whom died homicidal death.

62. If the doctor's evidence is taken that the death of all the four persons had taken place about four months ago from the date of post-mortem examination and bone examination of three dead bodies, the death can be stated to have taken place in the last week of January, 1999 or in the first week of February, 1999.

The evidence of Sona Bhowmick (PW 7) suggests that her brother Kalyan Bhowmick had attended reception at her house on 29th of January, 1999. Such statement has been supported by her husband Umar Khan (PW 8). Sona Bhowmick had visited the house of her maternal-grand-mother, namely, deceased Anita Roy in the first week of February, 1999 and had found Chaitali and Rizwan present in the house. She did not find any other persons, such as, Anita Roy, Shubhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick in the house and her mother's room was locked. Ajit Kumar Pramanik (PW 10), friend of deceased Shubhendu Bhowmick, has deposed that Shubhendu Bhowmick did not attend his duties after 30th January, 1999. Similar statement has been made byRatan Das (PW 11), another independent witness. Hare Krishna Mahto (PW 14) has deposed that he did not see Shubhendu Bhowmick, his wife, son and mother-in-law after January, 1999 in the Ghorabandha house. All these evidences clearly establish that the murder of Anita Roy, Shubhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick took place on or about 30th January, 1999 in Ghorabandha house.

63. Admittedly there is no eye-witness in the case. The prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidences in order to substantiate the charges, levelled against both the accused, namely, Chaitali @ Shehnaz and Saiyad Rizwan. The prosecution also has taken help of extra-judicial confession of accused Chaitali Bhowmick and Rizwan before Sajjad Khan (PW 3) and Rameshwar Prasad (PW 4) as also the statement of approver Mahboob Hussain (PW 26).

64. The learned Court below has noticed the circumstantial evidences, which are of such strong nature that any person will reach similar towards the guilt of offenders along and no other alternative hypothesis.

65. Rameshwar Prasad (PW 4) has deposed that on 8th June, 1999 Rizwan, Sahid and Chaitali came to his residence with Sajjad Khan (PW 3). According to him, Chaitali was having a child of 6 to 8 months in her lap. He has stated that Sajjad told him that they were his guest and have come from a remote place and there being some guest in the house of Sajjad Khan, he had brought them to his (PW 4's) house. He (PW 4) has further stated that he made arrangement for lodging and fooding of Rizwan, Shahid and Chaitali in his house and during dinner, Rizwan disclosed before him that he had committed murder of the parents, brother and maternal-grandmother of Chaitali and had put their dead bodies in the septic tank. Rizwan also disclosed before him that he had put some chemicals in the septic tank and thereafter, had sealed them.

66. The approver Mahboob Hussain (PW 26) has also deposed in his evidence that Rizwan met him at Kharangajhar on1st February, 1999 at about 9.30 p.m. and told him that he wanted some help from him for doing some work. When he (PW 26) reached and entered the Ghorabandha house, he detected some foul smell and Rizwan told Chaitali to close the door from inside. Late in the night, Rizwan opened the lock of a room, located inside, where dead body was lying on the double bed Palang and he was asked by Rizwan to remove it. When Mahboob Hussain (PW 26) declined to do so, Rizwan threatened that the 5th dead body will be his (PW 26's) Mahboob Hussain (PW 26) accompanied Rizwan and how they dragged the dead bodies of Chaitali's father, mother, brother and maternal-grandmother, has been detailed by this witness (PW 26).

67. Since 1st February, 1999 all the four deceased were not seen in the Ghorabandha house. Chaitali and Rizwan were seen in the Ghorabandha house between 29th January. 1999 and 27th February, 1999, as is evident from the statement, made by Sona Bhowmick (PW 7), Tapan Ghosh (PW 1), approver Mahboob Hussain (PW 26) and others.

68. The prosecution could establish that Chaitali gave false information to Sona Bhowmick (PW 7) and others regarding Anita Roy, Shubhendu Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick and Kalyan Bhowmick, this is evident from the deposition, made by Sona Bhowmick (PW 7), Ajit Kumar Pramanik (PW 10) and Ratan Das (PW 11), to whom she (Chaitali) made wrong statement that her parents had gone to Ranaghat because of the death of her grand-mother. On the basis of the confessional statement of accused Chaitali and Saiyad Rizwan, a Chopar (sharp cutting weapon) and clothes containing human blood and other incriminating articles were recovered by the I.O., which were Material Exhibits. These were strong circumstantial evidences, brought on record by the prosecution, to bring home the charges, levelled against both the accused. Chaitali and Rizwan left Jamshedpur in the end of February, 1999 and were at Lucknow has been proved, as is evident from the statement of PrashantBhatia (PW 29), owner of the house at Lucknow, and Abdul Hadi (PW 30), owner of the Hotel Awadh, Lalbag, Hazatganj, Lucknow, where Rizwan and Chaitali had stayed on 28th February, 1999.

69. The recovery of Washing Machine, TV and VCP of deceased Anita Roy from the premises, occupied by accused Chaitali Bhowmick and Saiyad Rizwan at Lucknow, also raises finger on them. A letter dated 28th April, 1999 (Ext. 12), addressed to the Dy. Manager, New Auto Complex, TELCO, was recovered from the tenanted premises of accused Chaitali and Rizwan at Luck-now, which is purported to have been written by deceased Subhendu Bhowmick but the informant, Dr. Anupam Roy (Pw 32) has proved that the writing was of accused Chaitali. Accused Chaitali has put her signatures as Chaitali @ Shehnaz at many placed in the order sheet of the Court below and in its records. She has also put her signatures on her statements, recorded by the Court under Section 313, Cr PC. The learned Court below on comparing the signature and writing of Chaitali with the writing of Ext. 12, came to definite conclusion that Ext. 12 was in the writing of accused Chaitali. In the said letter, it was intended to show as if Shubhendu Bhowmick informed that he was unable to join duties because of the death of his mother and his wife.

The other evidences, such as, Exts. X/2 to X/7, the cheques issued by Canara Bank, TELCO Branch, if read with the confessional statement of Chaitali, it becomes evident that from the account of deceased Anita Roy, converting a cheque of Rs. 1,000/-, she withdrew a sum of Rs. 71,000/- and other amounts have been withdrawn subsequently, showing the same to have been withdrawn on 3rd February, 1999 by Lucky Bhowmick, though she was no more alive on that date. Other exhibits show that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn from Canara Bank on 4th February, 1999 allegedly by Sona Bhowmick and Ext. X/13 (alleged application) shown to have been submitted by Sona Bhowmick, Lucky Bhowmick, Sontu Bhowmick for loan.

70. One can not ignore the evidence of an independent witness Ravindra Nath Malakar (PW 21), Goldsmith by profession, that Chaitali had approached him about a year ago some in May/June, 1999 with golden Bala, Mukut, Umbrella and Bhagwan Jee to sell him. The learned Court below has rightly observed that Chaitali having married Rizwan in the year, 1996 by converting herself as a Muslim and having changed her name as Shehnaz, there was no occasion for her to purchase or possess ornaments for God which suggests that Chaitali had removed them from the Ghorabandha house where steel almirahs were found broke open.

71. The prosecution, thus, has successfully brought on record all the evidences to complete the chain of circumstantial evidences, in order to substantiate the charges against the accused Chaitali @ Shehnaz and Saiyad Rizwan.

72. The place of occurrence is Ghorabandha house of the informant, the date of occurrence is on or about 31st January, 1999 and the deceased are Shubhendu Bhowmick, his wife Lucky Bhowmick, his son Kalyan Bhowmick and his mother-in-law Anita Roy. There is ample evidence on record to show that accused Saiyad Rizwan and Chaitali Bhowmick did every thing to murder them and to tamper with the evidence. The offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 468, 420, 380 and 411 read with Section 34, IPC stand proved against both the accused, i.e., Saiyad Rizwan and Chaitali Bhowmick @ Shehnaz @ Sontu, beyond all shadow of reasonable and probable doubts.

73. Thus, I find no reason to disagree with the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court to hold accused Saiyad Rizwan and Chaitali Bhowmick @ Shehnaz @ Sontu guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 468, 420, 380 and 411 with Section 34, IPC and, thus, uphold the judgment and order of conviction.

74. [n the present case, I am now concerned with the issue as to whether the death sentence, imposed on appellantsSaiyad Rizwan and Chaitali Bhowmick, are to be affirmed or not.

75. In the case of Bachan Singh v. The State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1980 SC 898, the Supreme Court noticed the following mitigating circumstances to exercise the Courts discretion, before exercise of option of death sentence.

'(1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

(2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.

(3) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society.

(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions 3 and 4 above.

(5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence.

(6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.

(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.'

76. In the case of Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1983 SC 957, the Supreme Court again noticed the aforesaid mitigating circumstances and held as follows :

'33. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh's case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh's case :

(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability;

(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime';

(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances;

(iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

34. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following questions may be asked and answered :

(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?

(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?

35. If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid proposition and taking into account the answers to the questions posed hereinabove, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the Court would proceed to do so.'

77. Murder itself is a heinous crime. The evidence, as on record, and the circumstances of the case do reveal that it wasa cold-blooded murder and the victims were helpless and undefended. There was no fault on their part except that they were parents or brother or grand-mother of appellant Chaitali Bhowmick i.e., in-laws of appellant Saiyad Rizwan. The offence committed was exceptionally a heinous one and the manner of its execution shows the extreme atrocity and cruelty towards the deceased. But even though, whether the aforesaid mitigating circumstances call for death sentence, an exception to the Rule of life imprisonment.

78. Appellant No. 2 Chaitali Bhowmick alias Shehnaz alias Sontu is a woman, aged about 28 years at present whereas her husband Saiyad Rizwan (Appellant No. 1) is aged about 28 years at present. They are parents of a boy, aged about four years. There is no criminal antecedent; cited against them to allege that they are harden criminals. There is no probability to suggest that the criminal acts of violence would constitute a continuing threat to the society. On the other hand, there is a probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated.

79. It may be uncommon that the daughter/grand-daughter and the son-in-law commits murder of parents/grandmother or brother but there are instances of murders of close relatives.

80. For the reasons aforesaid, I am persuaded to hold that sentence of imprisonment for life will be adequate in the circumstances of the crime. Accordingly, I convert the death sentence to life imprisonment in respect to both of the appellants, namely, Saiyad Rizwan alias Soni (Appellant No. 1) and Chaitali Bhowmick alias Shehnaz alias Sontu (Appellant No. 2). The death reference is answered accordingly and the appeal is hereby dismissed but with modification in sentence, as ordered above.

Lakshman Uraon, J.

I agree.