High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY, J.
Apiruddin Mia & Others
Versus
The State of West Bengal
C.R.A. No. 306 of 2010
Decided On : 12-12-2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Section 148, 325/149 and 304 (part II)/149 of the IPC - Conviction for assault and grievous hurt - Delay in lodging FIR and forwarding it to the Magistrate - Non-examination of injured witness by the Investigating Officer - Discrepancies in the statements of witnesses - Held, the delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR did not prejudice the appellants and the non-examination of the injured witness was due to his prolonged medical treatment - Discrepancies in the statements of witnesses were natural and normal in the fact situation of the case - Conviction and sentence upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 325/149 and 304 (Part II)/149 of the IPC for assaulting and causing grievous hurt to the deceased and other injured persons over a dispute related to a velly tree.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR did not prejudice the appellants, the non-examination of the injured witness was due to his prolonged medical treatment, and the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses were natural and normal in the fact situation of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR prejudiced the appellants? 2. Whether the non-examination of the injured witness by the Investigating Officer affected the prosecution case? 3. Whether the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses rendered their testimonies unreliable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Delay in lodging and forwarding FIR: The Court held that the delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR did not prejudice the appellants as no question was put to the police officials or the Investigating Officer regarding the delay, and the appellants did not explain how they were prejudiced by such delay. 2. Non-examination of injured witness: The Court held that the non-examination of the injured witness by the Investigating Officer was not fatal to the prosecution case as he was unconscious after the incident, underwent prolonged medical treatment, and was not in a condition to narrate the incident to the officer. 3. Discrepancies in witness statements: The Court held that the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses regarding the exact place of occurrence, the location of the velly tree, and the specific actions of each appellant were natural and normal in the fact situation of the case, where twelve armed persons jointly attacked three unarmed persons.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Kanchan Chakraborty, J:
1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 29.4.2010 and 30.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, FT court no-1, Dinhata in Sessions Case no. 217 of 2006 S.T. no-7(VI) of 2008 thereby convicting the appellants under Section 148, 325/149 and 304 (part II)/149 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of 3000/-for the offence under section 304 (Part II)/149 of IPC, R.I. for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2000/-each for committing offence under Section 325/149 of IPC and R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, respectively, with a direction that all the sentences should run concurrently.
2) Rafiqul Islam Khandakar lodged one F.I.R in Dinhata Police Station on 25.11.2004 stating therein that about 15 days prior to 19.11.2004, he and his brothers cut down a velly tree which had grown over their ancestral land. On 19.11.2004, at about 11 A.M. to 11 noon, the appellants being armed with Dao, axe, iron rod, lathi etc. tried to take away the velly tree which was cut down by Khandakar brothers and kept in their land. Safiqul Islam Khamdakar and Ekramul Haque Khandakar, the brothers of Rafiqul Islam tried to stop the appellants from taking away the velly tree. The appellants assaulted Safiqul Islam Khandakar and Ekramul Haqe Khandakar, on the land of one Altab, with iron rod and wooden baton on their heads and different parts of their body. Being attracted by the alarm of Safiqul and Ekramul, Apia Bewa, their mother, Babu Khandakar, their brother and Ramicha Bibi wife of Rafiqul Islam Khandakar rushed to the place of occurrence in order to save Ekramul and Safiqul. They were also assaulted by the appellants severally. Ekramul and Safiqul sustained serious injuries on their head and fell unconscious on the ground. Apia Bewa also sustained fracture injury on both of her hands. Rafiqul Islam and his neighbours took Ekramul, Safiqul and Apia Bewa to Dinhata for their medical treatment. Safiqul and Ekramul were referred to North Bengal Medical College and Hospital at Siliguri while Apia Bewa was referred to M.J.N. Hospital at Cooch Behar. Since Rafiqul Islam Khandakar was busy with medical treatment of his brothers and mother, he could not filed the F.I.R. before the 25.11.2004. On the basis of said F.I.R. lodged by Rafiqul Islam Khandakar, Dinhata police station case no. 222/2004 dated 25.11.2004 was started under Section 147, 148, 149, 325 and 326 of IPC. Amongst the injured, Safiqul Islam Khandakar died on 3.12.2004 at Neuro Hospital and C.T. Scan Centre private Limited, Pradhannagar, Siliguri. Section 304 of IPC was added to because of his death. Charge-sheet was filed under the above mentioned Sections and the trial commenced because the appellants pleaded their innocence. The appellants was arrayed to face charges under Section 148, 325/149 and 304/149 of the IPC. Twenty six (26) witnesses were examined by the prosecution in course of trial on behalf of the prosecution. Huge number of documents was also admitted into evidence and marked exhibit 1 to 19/1 on behalf of the prosecution. The defense preferred not to adduce any evidence excepting one witness namely Soroj Kumar Ray as D.W. 1.Upon considering of the evidence on record and materials placed before it, the learned Trial Court found that the prosecution established the case against the appellants beyond the all possible doubts and accordingly, recorded their conviction and sentence by the judgement and orders which are impugned in this appeal.
3) The appeal has been assailed, mainly, on the following grounds :
i) that the learned Judge was oblivious of the fact that the First Information Report, according to the P.W. 1 was lodged on 20.11.2004 but the F.I.R. shows that it was registered on 25.11.2004 indicating that the initial F.I.R. dated 20.11.2004 was suppressed and subsequently by a new F
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.