RANTHU ORAON Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2008 and 20.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No.83 of 2007 convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/454 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code; both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant, is to the effect that 4-5 thieves had entered the cowshed of Amizuddin Md. (PW3). When his family members raised alarm, they fled away through the garden and one of them, i.e. the appellant started running northwards. Various persons of the locality including the victim Abdul chased the appellant. They surrounded him on the kutcha road between a Masjid and a tank. The appellant started throwing arrows at them indiscriminately. As a result, Abdul suffered injury and was shifted to hospital where he expired. The appellant was apprehended by local people and handed over to police. Bow and arrow were seized in the course of investigation. On the written complaint of Khajiluddin Md., father of the deceased (PW1), FIR was registered against the appellant under Sections 459/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed and charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 454/302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2008 and 20.03.2008 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

(3.) Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the place of occurrence has not been specifically established. Most of the prosecution witnesses including the de-facto complainant (PW1) did not specifically state the place of occurrence. Weapon of offence was not seized from the appellant who was apprehended at the spot. The incident occurred in the dark and there was no light to identify who had shot the arrow at the deceased. Torch lights were not seized in course of investigation. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, it was argued that the appellant had no intention to kill the victim and had indiscriminately shot arrows as he had been surrounded by a large group of persons and apprehended that he would be manhandled by them. Hence, conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ought to be converted to one punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. He relied on Laxman vs. State of M.P., 2006 11 SCC 316.