ARUN DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARUN Debnath, son of Shri Panchu Debnath, Shri panchu Debnath, Sanath Debnath, both sons of Shri Harekrishna Debnath and harekrishna Debnath, son of late Rajani debnath, all residents of village-Satghara within territorial jurisdiction of Mathurapur police Station in the district of 24 Parganas (South) were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing death of one Nabin Haider, aged about 17 years, son of Shri Amar Haider, as also under Section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for concealing the body of the deceased in a septic tank, situate at the backside of the house of the accused persons. The learned Special Court (E. C. Act) and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South)in Sessions Trial No. 2 (2) 2003 by a judgment dated 29th July, 2005 has convicted all the accused persons against both the offences and by an order dated 30th July, 2005 sentenced, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused persons to life imprisonment as also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of fine and in default, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment. The accused persons were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months' for the offence under section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The convicts have come up in appeal.

(2.) THE appeal was admitted by an order dated 6th September 2005. On 8th February 2006 an order granting bail to Arun debnath and Harekrishna Debnath was passed. The prayer for bail made by Panchu debnath and Sanath Debnath was, however, rejected. On 8th February, 2006 the appellants brought to the notice of a Division bench of this Court that it would appear from the examination made under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. that the accused Arun debnath at the material point of time was less than 18 years old. Accordingly an order was passed directing the learned trial Court to make an enquiry and to ascertain the age of Arun Debnath, the appellant No, 1, on the date of the incident and to submit a report. On the basis of the records of the school Board it was submitted by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants that on the date of occurrence the first appellant was a minor and therefore he could not have been directed to undergo imprisonment. We shall consider this point if occasion arises at the appropriate stage.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution briefly stated is as follows :-