DILIP BARMAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have assailed judgment and order dtd. 28/8/2018 and 29/8/2018 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000.00 each, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for five months more.

(2.) Prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 1/7/2004 around 6 a.m. the appellants herein being the cousins of one Swadip Barman (since deceased) cut bamboos from a bamboo bush and started placing the bamboo logs in the front of the house of the deceased to block egress from and ingress to the house. Swadip protested and got into a goods carrier Maxima vehicle in order to go to the police station to lodge complaint. The appellants broke the window pane of the vehicle, dragged out Swadip and mercilessly assaulted him with bhojali and axe. Alpana Barman (P.W. 1), wife of Swadip Barman and his mother, Utreeswari Barman (P.W. 2) tried to resist them but failed. As a result of assault Swadip died at the spot. Police came to the place of occurrence and Alpana Barman lodged written complaint which was registered as Boxirhat Police Station Case No. 116 of 2014 dtd. 1/7/2014 under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. In the course of investigation police seized axe, bhojali and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. Appellants were arrested. Inquest and postmortem were held over the body of the deceased and charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.

(3.) Dr. Adhikary, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits apart from P.Ws. 1 and 2, no independent witness from the locality was examined. P.W. 1 had inimical relationship with her husband. Criminal case was pending between them. P.W. 2, in crossexamination, stated she had deposed as per instruction of the police. P.W. 8 is a post occurrence witness. He did not support the seizure of weapons from the place of occurrence. Prior to registration of F.I.R. earlier intimation was given to the police which has not been produced in Court. Prosecution case is riddled with various contradictions and inconsistencies. Hence, appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.