SUBRATA ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against a judgment dated 23rd June, 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-IV, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 8 (6) 04 arising out of Sessions Case No. 58 (11) 02 convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. and an order dated 24th June, 2005, by which the convicts Ranjit Mondal, Subrata roy @ Ditu, Jalodhar Mondal @ Jalo and Bishu Barua were sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the four convicts together preferred an appeal which has been registered as C. R. A. 536 of 2005. The third appellant, jalodhar Mondal, was granted bail by an order dated 14th December, 2005. On 11th September, 2006, a Division Bench of this Court decided to recall the order dated 14th December, 2005, and for that purpose directed the matter to be listed on 13th September, 2006. When the matter was listed on 13th Septemebr, 2006, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants, that the said Jalodhar Mondal had passed away. On 25th September, 2006, the division Bench of this Court passed an order on the basis of a report furnished by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, that the appeal, in so far as the third appellant, Jalodhar Mondal, was concerned had abated in view of the fact that he had died. The fourth appellant, Bishu Barua, it appears, filed an independent appeal subsequently which has been registered as C. R. A. 429 of 2006. There are, thus, two appeals which have come up for hearing.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that on 20th November, 2001, around 12. 00 hours Dilip Shaw was shot dead by the appellants and one Munna Tewari. Charge-sheet was filed against the five accused persons. The said Munna Tewari was absconding. The case as against Munna Tewari was, as such, filed for the present, and the rest of the four accused persons were proceeded against. They were charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. The prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses. The de facto complainant, Rahamat AH Sardar, who had notified the incident to the police on the basis whereof the case was started, turned hostile at the trial. Similarly, the P. W. 2, Chhaya Pal, and P. W. 3, Goutam Das, both residents of the locality where the incident took place, also turned hostile at the trial. The conviction is based principally on the evidence of the P. W. 7, Puspa Shaw, the widow of the victim, P. W. 9, Santosh Prosad Shaw, brother-in-law of the victim, P. W. 12, Usha Devi, a relation of the victim, P. W. 13, Monoj Kumar Shaw, another relation of the victim, P. W. 4, Dr. Prity Koley, who attended the victim at Vidyasagar hospital when he was shifted at about 12. 40 hours on 20th November, 2001, the Autopsy Surgeon, P. W. 14, and the Investigating Officer, p. W. 15.

(3.) P. W. 9, Santosh Prosad Shaw, brother-in-law of the deceased, deposed that "there was long standing dispute in between my brother-in-law and Jalo Mondal and Ors. " He further deposed in this regard that" I lodged 30/35 diaries at the P. S. with regard to the offence committed by Jalo mondal. " In his cross-examination he also deposed as follows :-Prior to my deposition on this day I have stated these facts to the addl. S. P. and Panchayet Pradhan in writing. "