TORAB S.K. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Serial No. 64 of 2001. The appellants have all been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 148 of the IPC. They have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each in default of which rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. They have also been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default of which, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC.

(2.) ON 29th July, 1981 at about 6:30 a.m. the complainant Ajabul Sk. after being shaved by a barber, Bhulu Pramanik, left the latter's house. He walked about 30/40 hands away when he saw Riasat Sk. proceeding to Bhulu Pramanik's house for a haircut. He saw the appellants, who were led by Habibur Rahaman, appellant No. 2, armed with sharp edged instruments like Heso and Kati. Habibur Rahaman incited and instigated the others to kill Riasat Sk. Nureman, appellant No. 3 dealt a blow on the lower limbs of Riasat who collapsed there. Torab Sk., appellant No. 1 then assaulted him on his left heel. Nurul and Hasimuddin, appellant Nos. 3 and 4 also dealt blows on the lower part of Riasat's legs. The complainant cried out and some people ran towards the place of occurrence. On being threatened by the appellants all the people including the complainant and Bhulu fled away from that place. The villagers went to the place of occurrence later and found Riasat Sk. lying on the ground, bleeding, and with many more injuries. Riasat expired about 10 to 15 minutes later. According to the prosecution, the motive for the crime was that Riasat Sk. and the appellants had a long standing dispute over the ownership of a field. The FIR was lodged by the complainant at Suti Police Station on 29th July, 1981. An inquest was conducted by the Investigating Officer who found that there were injuries on the left hand and left leg of the victim. The post mortem examination was conducted on the victim. The autopsy report indicates that the death was due to the effect of injuries as described ante mortem and homicidal in nature.

(3.) PW 1 is the complainant. He has spoken of the incident which occurred about 23 to 24 years prior to the date on which he deposed in Court. He has stated that while Bhulu Pramanik, the barber, was dressing the hair of Riasat Sk., the 5 appellants appeared armed with Heso, Kati etc., all sharp edged weapons. This is contrary to what he stated in his complaint where he mentioned that he saw Riasat proceeding towards the barber's house. The witness has then described the assault. He has embellished his version in the complaint by stating that Habibur instigated the others by exhorting them to "finish them all". He has also stated that a Kati was recovered from the house of Torab Sk., and that he had signed the seizure list after this recovery was made. He has contradicted himself in the cross -examination with regard to the place where he saw Riasat for the first time on 29th July, 1981. He has reiterated that the accused assaulted Riasat on his limbs only and that Nureman had caught hold of Riasat's hair, making him lie flat on the ground. The discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PW 1 are not so significant for his evidence to be discarded in its entirety.