Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 839 (CAL)

Foridabibi v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-08-21

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, TAPAS KUMAR GIRI

body2008
Judgment :- BANERJEE, J. (1) ONE Mojammel Sk., son of Kayem Sk. was residing along with his wife and sons in the village Kalahapur, P. S. Murarai, District-Birbhum. His brother Lalu Sk. was also residing in the same house along with his wife Forida Bibi and his son apart from their parents. On March 8, 1987 at about 10. 30 to 11 a. m third son of Mojammel by the name of Hondal was found missing. All the members of the house including the villagers made frantic search for the child but they were not successful in such venture. Upon coming to know of the fact of missing of the child Gendu Bibi, the sister of Mojammel came to the house along with her husband. In the night on March 8, 1987 while Gendu Bibi was sleeping along with her mother on the terrace of the ground floor she noticed that Forida Bibi, wife of Lalu, came down from the first floor with a gunny bag and kept the same on the terrace and left the place abruptly. Gendu Bibi immediately found the dead body after opening the said gunny bag. She raised alarm. Other members of the family rushed to the terrace. The villagers also joined there. Lalu, Kader and Elahi Saheb went upstair to bring Forida down. Forida to save herself was reluctant to come and was standing with a hasua. Ultimately she was brought down. On being pestered by the persons present she confessed that she had killed the child. On the next day. the police came and held inquest of the dead body and the same was sent for postmortem examination. Upon preliminary investigation police initiated a case and arrested Forida Bibi. Forida pleaded not guilty of the offence and faced trial. (2) MR. Susanta Kumar Mukherjee, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, contends that no one except Gendu Bibi deposed about the involvement of Forida in the matter of unearthing the dead body. Mr. Mukherjee contends that Lalu married for the second time and the entire family made Forida a scapegoat. There was no evidence which would conclusively show that Forida had killed the child. Mr. Mukherjee prays for acquittal of the appellant. (3) SK. Mr. Mukherjee contends that Lalu married for the second time and the entire family made Forida a scapegoat. There was no evidence which would conclusively show that Forida had killed the child. Mr. Mukherjee prays for acquittal of the appellant. (3) SK. Abdus Salam, learned Counsel, appearing for the prosecution, on the other hand contends, that all the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other on the factum of unearthing of the dead body of the child. Forida confessed in presence of all that she had committed the crime. Hence the learned Judge rightly held Forida guilty of the offence and sentenced her for life. (4) WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have perused the deposition as well as the judgment and order of the Court below. Gendu Bibi was residing in her marital home. Upon coming to know of the fact that her nephew was missing she, accompanied by her husband, came to her parental home. She shared bed with her mother on the terrace in the said night. She categorically deposed that she found Forida placing the gunny bag at the foot of the staircase. On being confronted Forida Bibi abruptly left the place. She thereafter found the dead body by unfolding the gunny bag. On alarm being raised by her the other inmates of the house along with the villagers assembled. In their presence Forida confessed that she had killed the child. The wooden chest where the dead body was earlier kept, was seized by the police along with blood stained clothes, news papers etc. from the said chest. In reply to the queries made in examination under Section 313 Forida admitted that Gendu was lying on the terrace along with her mother. She also admitted that she had confessed upon being compelled because of the physical torture and out of fear. Hence the factum of confession was also admitted by Forida in her examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (5) IN this back drop the learned Judge of the Court below held her guilty of the offence and sentenced her for life. (6) WE do not find any scope of interference on that score. (7) THE appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (8) THE appellant is directed to surrender before the Court below. (5) IN this back drop the learned Judge of the Court below held her guilty of the offence and sentenced her for life. (6) WE do not find any scope of interference on that score. (7) THE appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (8) THE appellant is directed to surrender before the Court below. In default, the sureties are directed to produce the appellant before the Court below for sufferance of the sentence. (9) LET Lower Court records be sent down along with a copy of this judgment and order.