SUBL DULEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENAGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgement dated 21st February, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 1/november/2002 arising out of sessions Case No. 16 (9) of 2001 convicting the appellant-Subal Duley, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and an order dated 22nd February, 2005 by which the convict was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are that about eight years prior to the date of the incident the deceased Sibnath had developed an illicit relationship with Chhabirani, wife of the accused Kinkar. She at that point of time was a mother of two children. The deceased was at that point of time a student reading in school. Chhabirani and Sibnath had eloped together and were residing somewhere in Hooghly. Father of the deceased, Sibnath, traced him out and brought him back. He thereafter was married to Dulali. After his elopement Sibnath did not come back to the village. He was residing at Sarenga pursuing a business of iron scrap after he was married to Dulali. About a month prior to the date of incident Sibnath along with his wife Dulali and two sons, came back to his village Dheko in order to participate in a Puja festival. On the date of the incident i. e. 8th March, 1996 Kinkar, his brother Nalini, and his son Subal, picked up a quarrel with Sibnath at about 5. 00 p. m. which was pacified by the intervention of well-wishers including Manas Chowdhury. At 7. 00 p. m. Kinkar, Nalini and Subal once again came back, surrounded the deceased Sibnath, and killed him. A written complaint, was lodged within four hours. The learned trial Judge has convicted the accused, Subal, and acquitted the accused kinkar and Nalini. Subal has come up in appeal.

(3.) MR. Sanyal, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant, assailed the judgement under challenge.