HARUN RASID ANSARI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by two appellants Harun Rasid Ansari and Gabla Dosad as appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 9.7.2014 passed against them by the learned Additional Session Judge 3rd Court, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2010 corresponding to Session Trial No. 31 of 2010. In the said judgment both the appellants have been convicted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000 each and in case of non-payment of fine simple imprisonment for three months more. Other 11 accused persons have been found not guilty and acquitted of the charges under Sections 148/302/326/149, I.P.C. in the impugned judgment. Said acquitted part of the judgment is not under challenge by either party.

(2.) Contending inter alia the appellants have contended that the learned Trial Judge has committed grave error of law, convicting and sentencing the appellants and that the PW 5 who is the informant of the case has not been corroborated by any independent evidence which fact has not been taken into consideration in the impugned judgment. Appellants have also contended that state prosecution respondent failed to prove the place of occurrence and the alleged facts of the FIR but without considering the same impugned judgment and orders have been passed. The impugned judgment and orders are bad in law and liable to be set aside which has been claimed by the appellants in their petition for appeal. During pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2 Gabla Dosad has been granted bail while the appellant No. 1 remains in correctional home as appears from the record. Moot questions for determination in this appeal as per arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the appellants is whether the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the reality of the evidence on record and whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been erroneously delivered on the basis of hearsay statement or not. Learned Advocate for the appellants has claimed that none of the witnesses of state respondent can be considered as eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. The other determining question is whether the ingredients for convicting a person under Section 302, I.P.C. have been fulfilled and whether appellant Gabla Dosad can be held guilty of any offence.

(3.) The facts of the case as appears are that on 4.6.2000 at 12:05 hours, one Biswanath Bouri (PW 5) lodged a written information at P.S. Para in the District of Purulia with a complaint that 11 accused persons including the present two appellants of village Bajkatara were engaged as labourers by a contractor for manufacturing of concrete cement slipper in a factory at New Colony near Anara Railway Station. Said accused persons did not intend to allow any other labour of other villagers to work in that factory. On 4.6.2000 at about 9:30 a.m. informant Biswanath Bouri along with Mansur and others went there to meet the contractor and they reached near Durga Temple at Anara New Colony. Accused persons being armed with Lathi, Tangi, Ballam (spear), iron-rod, arrow and bow assaulted them. Appellant No. 1 shot one arrow towards chest of Mansur in order to kill him and appellant No. 2 gave a blow of iron-rod forcefully on the head of Mansur causing injuries. The informant tried to resist them when appellant No. 2 assaulted him on the back side of his head.