RANJIT CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each for the commission of the offence under Section 304 part 1/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1988, the eleven convicts/ appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the said order of conviction, as passed by the learned trial Court. Said Sessions Trial was started on a written complaint submitted by one Kashi Nath Chakroborty to the Officer-in-Charge of Balagarh P.S. on 25.03.1984 and on the basis of that Balagarh P.S. Case No. 11 dated 25.03.1984 was started. In the written complaint, said Kashi Nath Chakraborty stated that 27 persons whose names have been mentioned in the written complaint along with others formed an unlawful assembly on 25.03.1984 at about 8.00 a.m. and being armed with weapons trespassed into the house of his brother Ramanath Chakraborty. Seeing that Ramanath took shelter on the roof of his house out of fear. At that time one of the miscreant hit Ramanath by an arrow and as a result of that Ramanath sustained bleeding injury and fell down. The accused persons thereafter tied him with a rope and then assaulted him severely by lathi, spear, chain and fist and blow. Due to such assault Ramanath sustained severe injuries. Within a short span of time Police came there and at that time Ramanath already died. However, the complainant and others took Ramanath to the hospital with the help of Police where he was declared dead. On the basis of such complaint, the case was started. It was investigated and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. During trial charges were framed against 25 persons. The prosecution in order to prove the charges, in all examined 24 witnesses, out of which P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 14, P.W. 15, P.W. 16, P.W. 17 and P.W. 18 are alleged to be the eye-witnesses. That apart, prosecution has also examined the Doctor who conducted the Post Mortem examination on the body of the deceased as well as the Police Officer who conducted inquest and investigation of the case. After considering the entire materials, as available on record, the learned trial Court was of the opinion that the prosecution was able to prove the charges under Section 304 Part 1/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellants who are 11 in number and convicted them accordingly. The learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that there was room for doubt in respect of the commission of the offence by the rest 14 accused persons and as such he was pleased to hold them not guilty for the offences charged with. This order of conviction has been challenged by filing the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellant as well as the learned Advocate for the State. Mr. Ashim Roy, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that since the learned Court did not convict the appellants for the commission of the offence under Sections 147/148 of the Indian Penal Code, so the conviction order as passed under Section 304 Part 1/149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain. In this respect he has cited decision reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 302, Mahadev Sharma & Ors. v. State of Bihar.

(3.) Mr. Roy further argued that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence as adduced by the witnesses for the prosecution properly and committed mistake in ignoring the glaring defects which are there in their evidence. As such, Mr. Roy submits that the learned trial Court was not justified in passing the order of conviction on the basis of the oral evidence as adduced on behalf of the prosecution.