http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RANDHIR BASIL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/02/2000

BENCH: G.T.Nanavati. S.N.Phukan

JUDGMENT:

J U DG M E N T G.T.  NANAVATT.J.

     i.   .   The appellant and one Krtshnanendu Jana  were tried  for  committing murders of Subhash Chandra  Pal,  his wife  Sulekha  Pal,  father Davendra Mohan  Pal  and  mother Latika Pal In the Court of Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas  In  Sessions Case No.  4(5) of 1993.  The  learned trial  Judge  held that the appellant committed the  murders and   Krishnanendu  aided  and   abetted  the  appellant  in committing  the  offence.   He   accordingly  convicted  the appellant  under Sections 302 read with 120-B and 201 l.P.C. He  convicted Krishnanendu under Sections 302 read with  109 l.P.C.  He imposed death sentence on both of them.

     2.   Challenging  their , conviction and sentence  the appellant  and  Krishnanencu filad separate appeals  in  the Calcutta  High  Court.  The learned, trial Judge  also  made areference  to the High Court for confirmation of the  death sentence.  The appeals and the reference were heard together and  were  disposed  of by A’ a common  judgment.   The.High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant but gave benefit of’doubt to Krishnanendu and acquitted him. As   his  conviction  and   sentence  have  been   confirmed the’appellant has filed this appeal challenging the same.

     3.   The  prosecution version, as held ^proved by  the evidence of P.W.2 Sudipa, was as under:

     (a)  The  family  of Subhash .Chandra  Pal  (deceased) consisted  of his parents, wife and the only daughter Sudipa They  were  economically  vvell-off.   Subhash  Chandra  Pal wanted  to  give good education to his daughter Sudipa  and, therefore,  used to engage private tutors also since  Sudipa was  in  class  VI In 1988, when’ Sudipa was In  class’  TX, her..father  engaged  the  appellant as a private  tutor  to teach  her  .certain, subjects’ as he was  residing  hereby. Initially Sudipa used to go to his house, but after

     somatime  the appellant, with the consent of  Sudipa’s parents,  started  teaching her by going to her house  every evening.

     (b)  Sudipa  was often ill - treated by her mother  as she  believed  that  Sudipa  was  responsible  for  all  her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

physical  sufferings which had started after her birth.  She was  not  allowing her to mix with boys and girls  with  the result  that  she did not have any friend.  She was also  at times  physically  assaulted by her mother.  Sudipa used  to make complaints about the ill-treatment by her mother to the appellant.   The appellant used to listen to her  complaints and  console  her and thereby he had won the  confidence  of Sudipa.   Sudipa  also started believing that the  appellant was her real well wisher.

     (c) As the relationship of Sudipa and appellant became more and more close the appelant started tcuching her- body. He  used to tell her stories -which could influence her mind and  also arouse romantic feeling in her.  By the middle  of 1990  they  started moving out alone after remaining  absent fi.Ti their respective schools,

     (d)  On 24.9.1990 the appellant had a headache when he was  in the house of Sudipa, he hao lied down on a sofa  and Sudipa  had  rubbed Arnritanjan balm on her head.  This  was seen  by her mother.  After the appellant had left  Sudipa’s mother  had  beaten her for that reason.  On two  subsequent occasions  also her mother had noticed the appellant placing his  hands on the back of Sudipa and because of that she was beaten  by  her  mother.   All these Incidents  used  to  be narrated by Sudipa to the appellant.  After hearing the last Incident  In  September, 1990 the appellant had told  Sudipa that  her  mother really deserved to be taken to a hill  and thrown down from the hill top.

     (Q)  In  November,  1990 her  other  teacher  Ashutosh Chakraborty was discontinued.  Believing that her father had done  so  at the Instance of her mother, Sudipa became  very agitated  and  complained  about ft to the  appellant.   The appellant  took  this  opportunity  to poison  her  mind  by telling her that her mother was not eager to see Improvement In  her  studies  and  to  make  her  life  a  success  and, therefore.   If  she  wanted to come up In life  she  should remove her from this world.

     (r)  During the latter half or 1990 the appellant  had also  started  telling her about his financial  difficulties and  with  her help he obtained a loan of Rs.  6,000/-  from her  father.  When it was not possible for her to get  money from  her  father  she used to give him her  ornaments  like chain,  ring etc.  without the knowledge of her parents.  On one  occasion she removed cash from the house and gave it to the  appellant.   On another occasion she gave Indira  Vikas Patra worth Rs.  5.000/" Thus towards the end of 1990 Sudipa was  under  completa influence of the appellant and she  had started  believing  that appellant was the only true  friend interested in her welfare.

     (g) Again when her mother told Sudipa not to appear in the  1991 examination and when Sudipa informed the appellant about  it,  the  appellant had told her that if  she  really wanted  to  remain happy in life she should remove her  from the world.  When she had enquired as to how that can be done the  appellant had told her to mix 50 tobies of compose with the  medicine  which  her  mother   was  taking  every  day. Initially,  she  agreed  to that suggestion  but  could  not muster  enough  courage  to  do so.   In  the  beginning  of January, 1991 the appellant tried to persuada Sudipa to give some poison to her mother to get rid of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

     her.   On  18.1.1991 the appellant’s wife w