RABAN MURMU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has been convicted by the trial court for the murder of his brother-in-law and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and the high Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. This appeal is by special leave. The appellant is alleged to have beaten the deceased on the head with a spade around 10. 00 P. M. on 10. 1.1988. PW 7, the doctor who conducted the autopsy found that the skull of the deceased was smashed and the brain material protruded out. The wife of the deceased lodged an FIR, She was not an eyewitness. She said that the incident happened in the house of the appellant. PW 2 is the son of the deceased. He was examined as eye-witness. PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 were examined for proving that the appellant had confessed to them on his way to the police station that he killed his brother-in-law, the deceased. The trial court and the High Court placed reliance on the evidence of PW 2 to PW 5. Mr. M. Qamaruddin, learned counsel appointed as amicus Curiae for the appellant pointed out some contradictions. First is that PW 2 was not described as an eye-witness in the FIR; second is that regarding the exact spot at which the appellant had confessed to the three witnesses there is some discrepancy between the testimony of the three witnesses. We have considered the impact of those contradictions and discrepancies but we are of the view that they are not enough to disrupt the findings made by the trial Court and the high Court regarding the reliability of the testimony of those witnesses. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed. reason to down grade the seniority of those, who were in the Traffic Inspectors, merely by upgrading the post of Station Master and Yard master, and therefore, directed that a fresh seniority list be drawn up of persons belonging to all these 3 categories of posts.

(2.) Mr. Goswami appearing for the Railway administration contended that soon after the cadre was restructured, and bifurcation was made, option had been sought for from the employees as to whether they would like to continue in the cadre of Traffic Inspector or would like to come over to the Station Master and Yard Master, and since only those employees, who exercised their option to continue as traffic Inspector were given the same, they cannot be permitted to make a grievance at the belated stage. Such a stand does not appear to have been taken before the Tribunal and Tribunal has not focussed its attention and answered on this question. It is true that Mr. Goswami relied upon a letter dated 7.2.1984 purported to be in reply of letter of Administration dated 16.10. 1983, but even that purported letter dated 16.10. 1983 is also not on record. Apart from the fact that the stand in question had not been taken before the Tribunal, it is also not possible for us to come to a conclusion on the basis of the letter, that, in fact, an option had been called for, and the employees gave their option to continue in the cadre of Traffic Inspector. In the aforesaid premises, we see no legal infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.