BEJOY SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted of an offence under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Judge, 13th Court of the City Sessions at Calcutta in Sessions Trial No.1 of Jan., 1978, Bijoy Singh, the convicted appellant has come up in appeal before us.

(2.) The prosecution case was briefly as follows:

(3.) On the night of 2-1-76 at about 9-30 p.m. Joy Kisen Rathi and Kamal Daga (P.W.5) were preparing to play Badminton on the roof of Premises No.24, Broja Dulal Street, Calcutta being accompanied by some other local boys. While the boys were trying to affix the net, the convict-appellant Bijoy Singh appeared on the scene abruptly with a knife as also a goopti. When Joy Kisen and Kamal Daga were about to start the game Bijoy Singh dismantled the net and broke down the bulb. Then followed a wordy altercation amongst them. Hearing the row one Suresh Singh and his wife Rajkumari Singh came out from their room situate on the self-same roof where the occurrence took place. Suresh Singh was carrying a Bhujali in his hand. As soon as Suresh Singh entered into the scene, Joy Kisen was stabbed by Bijoy Singh with the help of his knife. As a result thereof, Joy Kisen fell flat on the roof with profuse bleeding injuries in his body. Joy raised an alarm attracted by which several residents of the premises assembled at the spot. Amongst these persons P.W.35 Paban Kishan Sharma was one. In the meantime Kamal Daga caught hold of the hands of Suresh Singh. When Bijoy Singh rushed towards Kamal Daga, Gopal Das Sharma came to the spot. Gopal had come there to help the injured Joy Kisen. Thereafter both Bijoy Singh and Suresh Singh together assaulted Gopal Das Sharma so much so that he too like Joy Kisen fell flat on the self-same roof with bleeding injury on his person. Very soon thereafter, the two injured persons were removed to local Marwari Relief Society Hospital by two different vehicles and from there they were taken to Medical College, Calcutta where they were admitted as indoor patients. Joy Kisen died as a result of the injuries inflicted upon him a few days thereafter that is to say on 7-1-76 whereas Gopal Das Sharma died subsequently on 25-1-1976. In the meantime one Brij Ratan, P.W.21, a resident of the self-same premises rang up Lalbazar Police Headquarters and on receiving the information, S.I. Shri Nag, P.W.38 rushed to the spot at about 10 p.m. of the same night where the statement given by one of eye-witnesses Kamal Kumar Jain, P.W.3, was recorded. That statement was treated subsequently as the First Information Report. The two victims were not assaulted by Bijoy Singh alone but that in the matter of assault two other persons were also there namely, Suresh Singh and his wife Raj Kumari Singh. All the three persons, namely, Suresh Singh, Raj Kumari Singh and Bijoy Singh were tried jointly by the Sessions Judge. They were all charged under S.302 read with 34, I.P.C. for having caused murder of two persons namely, Joy Kisen and Gopal Das Sharma. Before the Sessions Court, 40 P.Ws. were examined and the evidence led was broadly of two varieties namely evidence of eye-witness and evidence of dying declaration made by the victims. P.Ws.3 to 7 and P.W.35 are stated to be eye-witnesses. All these eye-witnesses, it may be recalled were residents of the self-same premises namely, premises No.24, Broja Dulal Street, Calcutta. The learned Sessions Judge, it appears, disbelieved all the eye-witnesses excepting P.W.35. Relying upon the evidence of this witness alone, the conviction and sentence were passed by him as already indicated before. Mr. Ray Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the accused/appellant Bijoy Singh contends that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have relied upon the testimony of this witness inasmuch as the witness does not appear to be a reliable person at all. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the State contends that the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in believing and in acting upon the testimony of P.W.35. According to him, however, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have disbelived the other eye-witnesses of the case. We do not consider it necessary, to enter into the merits of this case in the line as indicated by the learned advocates aforesaid. For we have our difficulties in the matter.