IMPORTANT POINT
No conviction can be made in face of material discrepancies.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein and one Mongal Das were tried for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No.2 of March 1987 arising out of a First Information Report lodged with Berhampore Police Station in the District of Murshidabad, West Bengal. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the three accused under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more year.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants, along with Mongal Das, filed an appeal before the High Court, being C.R.A.No.343/87. By its judgment dated 30th June, 2008, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Although, there were no eye-witnesses to the incident and the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, the High Court was of the view that the circumstantial evidence, and in particular, the evidence of the victim would conclusively show that the accused were involved in the incident. Even the fact that the victim had not informed the doctor, who was examined as “P.W.7”, as to how the incident had happened, was not given much importance by the High Court.

4. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that while disposing of the appeal, the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court did not deal with the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and disposed of the appeal on a general reference to the same. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, including the evidence of P.W.1, the victim, would clearly establish the absurdity of the prosecution case. Mr. Ghosh urged that even the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) had not been considered by the High Court, although, the same had a significant bearing on the veracity of the prosecution case.

5. Mr. Ghosh urged that although the incident is said to have occurred at about 11.00 p.m. in the night of 6th September, 1982, the same was reported to the Berhampore Police Station only at 9.45 a.m. on 7th September, 1982, after the lapse of about 11 hours. From the First Information Report, Mr. Ghosh also pointed out that although the complaint was lodged on 7th September, 1982 at 9.45 a.m., the same was dispatched to the learned Magistrate the next day at 8.00 a.m., after an interval of one day. According to Mr. Ghosh, such delay spoke volumes of the manner in which the prosecution had built up its story, which in itself belied the prosecution case.

6. Turning to the evidence of P.W.1, Kashem Sk., the victim, Mr. Ghosh pointed out that according to the said witness he had gone to the Berhampore General Hospital for treatment immediately after the incident between 1.00 and 1.30 a.m. on 7th September, 1982. From the hospital, instead of going to the police station for lodging the First Information Report, he claimed to have gone home and went to the police station for the said purpose at 8.00 a.m., which gave him sufficient time to involve and implicate the appellants and Mongal Das in the incident on account of previous enmity.

7. Mr. Ghosh also pointed out from the evidence of P.W.1 that the incident as narrated was hard to believe since it was the case of the victim that while he was sleeping in the pump room in question, the Appellant No.1 pressed his mouth with his hand while Mongal Das held two ends of the knife to cut the throat of the victim. In cross-examination, P.W.1 also deposed that he had caught hold of the middle portion of the knife with both hands and that on account of the same he had sustained cut injuries on the palm of his left hand. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the said story was not consistent with the injury report which was prepared by P.W.7 on 7th September, 1982. According to the said report, P.W.