BUDHDEV PAUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.5.2000 and 6.5.2000 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three years and further rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) . Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are that:

(3.) . The case of the Prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances that need examination are (a) last seen, (b) motive, (c) disclosure statement and (d) recoveries. In order to prove that the deceased was last seen with the accused, the Prosecution has pressed into service the depositions of PW-3, Mehar Pal and PW-4, Tarun Mandal, who state that on 10.11.1998, on the day of diwali, they had collected at the residence of Mehar Pal, resident of Nirankari Colony at a party hosted by him. In the party, besides this witness, Jayant Ghosh, Budhdev Paul and a few others were present. When this witness arrived, Budhdev Paul and Jayant Ghosh were already present and soon thereafter went outside together. Later on at around 9/9.30 p.m. Budhdev Paul returned alone carrying a helmet with him. On enquiry about Jayant Ghosh, Budhdev Paul replied that he might be around and will join shortly. At that time, Budhdev Paul also disclosed that he had purchased the share of Jayant Ghosh in the house situated at Harit Vihar. The following morning while at work, this witness came to know that Jayant Ghosh had been murdered and that his body was lying in Jharoda. So, he along with PW-14, Ganga Dhar Mishra went to the spot and identified the body of Jayant Ghosh. His statement was recorded, Ex.PW-4/A. The witness has also stated that on 11.11.1996 when he joined investigation. No statement of Mehar Pal was recorded in his presence. However, the statement of this witness was recorded in the police station. The witness has categorically stated that no disclosure statement was made in his presence by the accused. PW-3, Mehar Pal corroborates the version of PW-4. From this it can safely be inferred that the Prosecution has proved the fact that the accused was last seen with the deceased.