KHAJER SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia, Krishnagar in Sessions Case No. 11(11) of 1998 (Sessions Trial No.DC of June, 2000) thereby convicting the accused appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six month each. Appellants were also convicted under section 148 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.I, a case was registered with Dhubulia Police Station being Dhubulia Police Station Case No.53/97 dated 4.5.97 under section 326/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under section 326/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. Charge was framed by the Trial Court under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and also under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 4.5.97 at about 7 p.m. when the husband of the informant was returning from the Ration Shop of P.W.4 after taking kerosene oil from the said shop and when he reached the metal road, he was attacked by the accused appellants and was assaulted with sharp-cutting weapons. It was stated in the FIR that on hearing the shout of her husband, the informant rushed to the place of occurrence which was on the metal road and found that her husband was still alive. She took her husband on a van and brought him to the hospital but on the way, the victim succumbed to his injuries. It was alleged in the FIR that it was the "firm belief of the informant that the assailants, whose names were disclosed in the FIR, were involved in the incident of assault.

(3.) To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Autopsy Surgeon. None was examined on behalf of the defence. Defence was a plea of innocence and of false implication.