DINU KOIBARTYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hearing concluded, upon hearing Ms. Rituparna Ghosh, learned Counsel for the State and in reply from Mr. Partha Pratim Das representing the appellant (in jail) who has preferred this criminal appeal assailing the judgment of conviction delivered in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2008 (S.T. No. 11 of 2009). The case arose from Raghunath Police Station Case No. 25 of 2007 dated 24th May, 2007 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") which ended into conviction on 22nd February, 2012 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Raghunathpur, Dist.-Purulia, sentencing the appellant on 29th February, 2012 for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC directing to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) Without making repetition to the fact as already contained by the learned Trial Judge, precisedly it may be mentioned that the deceased, Debasish Mondal was murdered on 15th May, 2007 in the afternoon by causing drowning in the water of the tank known as 'Bener Bandh' where there was only chest deep water, wherefrom dead body was recovered from knee deep water of said tank.

(3.) Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the appellant criticising the observation and finding of the learned Trial Judge holding the appellant responsible for such homiocidal death argued that though the alleged incident of murder took place on 15th May, 2007, but after making inordinate delay of 9 days, the FIR was lodged at the police station on 24th May, 2007. He submitted that there being no eye witness of the incident of drowning, and since the merit of the prosecution case was based only on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances could not be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. Further submitted that statement of P.W.2 and P.W.3 were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. after more than one year of the incident and, therefore, the chance of concoction would not be ruled out and the benefit of which should be attributed to the appellant. Further argued that the inquest was not held at the place of occurrence, rather it was held in the house of P.W.1.