SUNIL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th March 2005 and 31st March 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Suri, birbhum, in Sessions Trial No. 9 of August 2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 26 of 1995 by which all the 26 appellants were convicted under section 148 of the Indian penal Code and were setenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The appellants no. 1 to 13 were also convicted under section 302 read with section 149 of the IPC; under section 436 read with section 149 of the IPC and under section 201 read with section 149 of the IPC. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as also fine of Rs. 8000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 436 read with section 149 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 201 read with section 149 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 50% of the amount of fine was directed to be paid to Shrimati Adari Pal, mother of the victims/deceased Niranjan Pal and Lalu Pal by way of compensation. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:-

(2.) ON 26th November 1990 in the morning at about 7 A. M. the accused persons armed with lathi, tangi etc. raided the house of the defacto complainant, Sri Manick Chandra pal. Their object was to compel Pals, the complainant party, to accept Supriti @ Buri, daughter of Premnath ghsoh, as the wife of Bijoy Pal, a younger brother of manik Chandra Pal, who had allegedly developed an emotional relationship with the said Supriti @ Buri. The complainant party resisted the attempt of the accused persons who had tried to push the said Supriti in their house. A scuffle ensued between the parties. According to the complainant party (hereinafter referred to as the 'pals') they entered into their house and closed the main gate. According to the case of the accused persons during the scuffle the Pals started assaulting the people who had assembled to secure a respectable rehabilitation of the said Supriti. According to them Sanjay Pal assaulted Shantiram with a tangi, Bharat Pal assaulted banamali with a lathi, the deceased Lalu assaulted haradhan Mondal with a bhojali and the said Lalu and niranjan both assaulted Nanichora and Sujit with lathi. Shantiram, according to the case of the accused, was so severely assaulted that he died on the way to Khayrasole p. S. According to the case of the accused persons this had enraged the villagers. They became furious and rushed to the house of the Pals. According to the Pals after they had entered into their house and closed the main gate, their house was surrounded and set on fire by the accused persons. The inmates of the house of the pals dispersed in order to save their lives. The deceased Lalu and the deceased Niranjan were dragged by some of the accused persons and thereafter all the accused persons jointly killed them by beating. The case of the accused persons however is that they were neither connected with the killing of the deceased Lalu or niranjan nor were they in any way connected with setting the house of the Pals on fire. Case and a counter case were filed. A written complaint filed by the accused biswanath Ghosh at 7. 45 A. M. on 26th November 1990 provided the basis of G. R. Case no. 716 of 1990 which ultimately was tried in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1999. A written complaint made by Manik Chandra Pal recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police at 11. 30 A. M. on 26th november 1990 formed the basis of the G. R. Case No. 721 of 1990 which culminated in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1995. Both the cases were tried by the same learned Judge one after the other. In Sessions Case No. 34 of 1992 we are told that the persons figured as accused have been acquitted and a revision is pending in this Court whereas the Sessions Case No. 26 of 1995 resulted in conviction of 26 out of 33 accused persons who faced trial which we already have indicated.

(3.) FOR a proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case it would in our view be appropriate to notice in extenso the written compliant lodged by the P. W. 1 Manik Chandra Pal on the date of the incident at 11. 30 A. M. which is ext. 1/3. The written complaint, ext. 1/3, was recorded in Bengali. A translated version thereof included in the paper book is wholly unsatisfactory and is also incomplete. In that view of the matter we have corrected the English version of the written complaint retaining the original translation as far as possible which reads as follows:-