STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SUJIT DHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The death reference and the criminal appeals have arisen out of the impugned judgment and order dtd. 8/12/2016, 9/12/2016 and 12/12/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Session Trial No.04(01) 2013 arising out of Session case No.32(12) 2012 convicting the appellants Provash Dhali, Sujit Dhali and Samir Mondal for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 449, 120B and 302 IPC in additional to conviction of Provash Dhali under sec. 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under sec. 449 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under sec. 120B IPC, sentence of death as well as fine of Rs.50,000.00 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under sec. 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under sec. 25 of the Arms Act so far as Provash Dhali is concerned. Fine amount, if realised, was directed to be awarded to the minor sons of the deceased Avijit Biswas and Biswajit Biswas, P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively.

(2.) In the meantime, pursuant to a telephonic intimation received in the morning of 11/4/2012, P.W. 36, I.O., went to the place of occurrence. Another police officer S.I. Sushil Mallick (P.W. 10) conducted inquest over the bodies of Benoy Biswas and Kagoti Biswas resulting in registration of Barasat P.S. U.D. Case No. 154/2012 and 155/2012 respectively. Inquest over the dead body of Amrita Biswas was conducted by S.I. Mantu Mondal being U.D. Case No. 153/2012 dtd. 4/11/2012. At the place of occurrence P.W. 36 received information that statement of Sheuli Biswas recorded by P.W. 8, Biswajit Patra, has been treated as FIR. He prepared sketch maps of the two places of occurrence - one where the body of Benoy Biswas was lying and the house of Benoy Biswas in whose verandah dead body of Kagoti Biswas was lying. He seized cartridges and ammunitions from the first place of occurrence and blood from the verandah of Benoy Biswas along with broken door from the room of Benoy. Subsequently, he seized two bullet heads from the verandah on 20/4/2012. He recorded statement of witnesses including that of Avijit Biswas and Biswajit Biswas, sons of Benoy. Their statements were also recorded by the Magistrate. Post-mortem was conducted over the bodies of Benoy, Amrita and Kagoti by P.W. 24, Dr. Supriti Ghoroi. P.W. 24 found 27 injuries on the body of Benoy Biswas. On the body of Kagoti Biswas, he found eight injuries including extensive subdural haemorrhage over both cerebral hemisphere and fracture of both cornua of hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage. With regard to Amrita, he noted eight injuries including heamatoma and extentive subdural haemorrhage over both cerebral hemisphere and fracture of right cornua of hyoid bone. He opined death was due to effects of injuries, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Goutam Dhali, he recovered arms and ammunitions in presence of Sukumar Ghosh and Md. Hasanur Zaman, P.Ws 29 and 19 respectively. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of co-accused Manindranath Adhikary, arms and ammunitions were recovered in presence of Bidhan Biswas and Md. Hasanur Zaman, P.Ws. 17 and 19 respectively. He video recorded the confessional statement of Provash Dhali. Subsequently, he submitted charge-sheet against appellants and one Manindranath Adhikary. Upon receipt of ballistic report and FSL report, supplementary charge-sheet was submitted. Further supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on receipt of sanction under the Arms Act.

(3.) In the course of trial, prosecution examined 36 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.