The court emphasized the importance of consistent and reliable eyewitness accounts, supported by medical evidence, in establishing the guilt of the accused in criminal cases. The court also reiterated the requirement for proper documentation and adherence to legal procedures when relying on dying declarations as evidence.

Toufique Uddin, J. This appeal arose out of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 and 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 3(8) 2005 arising out of Sessions Case No. 100(1)/2004 and thereby convicting the appellants for commission of offence under sections 325/304-II/34 of Indian Penal Code.

The fact leading to this appeal in short is as follows:

On 25.3.2003 at about 7.15 hours one Pranab Maule lodged an FIR alleging that on 23.5.2003 at about 7-00 hours a hot altercation took place between Aurobinda and brothers on one side and Swapan Halder and his brothers on the other side. At that time accused Swapan Halder and Tapas Halder assaulted Dinabandhu with a branch of babla tree on his head causing bleeding injury and subsequently he was removed to hospital.

A complaint was lodged with the police.

After investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under sections 325/308/304/34 of Indian Penal Code.

The learned ACJM, Diamond Harbour, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas (South). After hearing of both sides, learned Trial Court framed charge under sections 325/304 of IPC against the accused persons. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to them when the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To contest this case the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses while none was examined on the side of the defence.

However, the accused persons were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence case as it appeared from the trend of cross-examination and reply given by the accused persons at the time of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. was denial of offence with a plea of innocence.

On trial the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellants by the impugned judgment.

Now, it has to be seen if the impugned judgment suffers from any material irregularity and calls for any interference or not.

Sections 325/304-II/34of IPC read as follows:

“325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. – Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. –

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

“34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. – When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The learned Counsel for the appellants interalia argued mainly on the following points:

a) Seven days delay have not been properly explained;

b) In the sketch map P.O. was not depicted;

c) The matter of alleged dying declaration was not put to the accused appellants at the time of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and

d) Dinabandhu did not mention the name of the assailants.

In addition learned Counsel for the appellants submitted written notes of argument which has been taken on record. He concluded that the prosecution failed miserably to prove the case against the appellants.

Learned Counsel for the State strenuously argued that there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The case has been proved not only by independent witness/P.W.-6 but also other witnesses i.e. P.W.- 3, 4, 5 and 7. He further argued that P.W.- 2’s description given in evidence can be used as dying declaration.

To appreciate the case from a better angle, some relevant pieces of evidenc