The court emphasized the importance of assessing the reliability of witness statements in light of the surrounding circumstances, including any potential pressure or threats that may have influenced the witness's testimony.

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 18th July, 1990, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) convicted the appellant, Mantu Karan, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Sona Hazari as also under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to cause murder of Madan Bhowmick and under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act in Sessions Trial No. 4(5) 1988 arising out of Sessions Case No.29(4) 1998. The convict, Mantu Karan, was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for attempting to murder Madan Bhowmick. Both the above sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

2. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows :

On 5th November, 1987, in the night between 10.30 p.m. and 10.45 p.m. Madan Bhowmick, P.W. 14, was gossiping with his friend, Son a Hazari, since deceased, in the Tala Jheel Park. All on a sudden, the appellant, Mantu Karan, appeared before them and hurled a bomb at Sona Hazari. Sona Hazari fell down. Madan Bhowmick was also injured. Madan Bhowmick fled away from the place heading towards his house. At home he narrated the incident to his brother, Rabin Bhowmick. He thereafter accompanied by his brother, Rabin Bhowmick, went to the house of Son a Hazari and informed his relatives. The brother and the brother-in-law of Sona Hazari accompanied Madan Bhowmick to the place of occurrence between 1.30 a.m. and 2 a.m., Sona Hazari was not there at the place of occurrence. The police had already arrived. Sona Hazari by that time had been removed to R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital where he was declared brought dead at around 0.45 hours. Madan Bhowmick met the police officer and narrated the incident. His statement was recorded which was eventually treated as the First Information Report. Police had arrived at the place of occurrence on the basis of a telephonic information given by one Dipak. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, the P.W. 17, is that before leaving the police station he had recorded a G.D. entry. Considering the fact that Madan Bhowmick was also injured, he was taken to the same doctor, who had earlier examined Sona Hazari and was examined. The medical papers have been produced. The evidence of the doctor is that P.W. 14, Madan Bhowmick, during examination on 6th November, 1987, at 7 a.m. told him that Mantu Karan had hurled a bomb which injured both Sona Hazari and Madan Bhowmick. The history of the case was contemporaneously recorded in the records of the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital which were produced in Court.

3. The police on the basis of information furnished by Madan Bhowmick sought to arrest the accused Mantu Karan. He absconded for some time and was ultimately arrested on 17th November, 1987.

4. The learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant, Mantu Karan, principally on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 14, 5, 3, 15 and 17.

5. In order to correctly appreciate the reasoning of the learned Trial Judge quoted above, it has to be pointed out that the charge originally framed was defective. After the witnesses were examined and arguments were heard, the matte was fixed for delivery of judgment on 30th May, 1990. Possibly during the period when the learned Trial Judge was drafting the judgment, he noticed that the charge as framed was defective. By the incident of hurling a bomb Sona Hazari had expired and Madan Bhowmick was injured whereas in the charge it was recited that Madan Bhowmick had expired and Sona Hazari was injured. The charge was thereafter corrected by the learned Trial Judge and the matter was set down for rehearing. A fresh schedule of exami