RAGHUNATH RAY, J. :

Introduction:

1. Five Criminal Appeals preferred by convict-appellants separately against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.9.91 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, XIIIth Bench, City Sessions Court at Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. I of June, 1988 were taken up for hearing one after the other. By the judgment of conviction and sentence impugned, the learned trial judge convicted the appellant (1) Baira @ Bhim Singh and (2) Lada @ Dipak @ Pradyut (in short A1 and A2 respectively) for offences under Section 148/307/34 IPC and 302/34 IPC. Accordingly, both of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life and also a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default further R.I. for 14 days. Both of them were further sentenced for R.I. for 7 years and also a fine of Rs. 100/- in default for further R.I. for 14 days in respect of an offence under Section 307/34 IPC. No separate sentence was, however, passed for the offence under Section 148 IPC.

2. The rest three appellants namely, (3) Tapan Roy Karmakar, (4) Sanjay Biswas and (5) Samiran Dhar @ Samir (in short A3, A4 and A5 respectively) were found guilty of offences under Section 147/302/34 IPC and 302/34 IPC. All of them were accordingly convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default whereof R.I. for 14 days under Section 302/34 IPC. All of them were further sentenced to R.I. for 14 days under Section 307/34 IPC. No further sentence was passed for the offence under Section 147 IPC. Substantive part of sentence was directed to run concurrently. Since all these criminal appeals were preferred separately against the judgment impugned, we propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment.

3. Mr. Rabindranarayan Datta, learned Advocate submits that the appellant Tapan Roy Karmakar had already left this world of living. A report was, therefore, called for from the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta vide order dated 28.2.2011. It was, however, reported inter alia by the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata that despite a thorough enquiry in the locality nobody could throw any light about the death of the said appellant A3.

4. It, however, appears from the report submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata that the death certificate of appellant Lada @ Dipak @ Pradyut Dutta, A2 issued on 17.9.10 by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is genuine and he died on 17.9.10 during the pendency of CRA No. 334 of 1991. We are, therefore, concerned with the rest four appeals.

Genesis:

5. A series of incidents took place in quick succession in three different places in close proximity of each other in a chilly winter night on 28.12.1986. The prosecution produced three sets of witnesses in support of three incidents. It has rightly been pointed out by the learned trial court that ‘there is no definite evidence on record to show which of the incidents took place first of all’. It can, however, be inferred from the general tenor of ocular evidence as also on close dissection of surrounding circumstances on record that the three points in close proximity as identified by the learned Trial court are the places where the incidents of alleged assault occurred.

A. First incident:

6. The first incident allegedly occurred on the eastern footpath of Singhee Lane adjacent to Simla Byayam Samity club (in short SBS) on 28.12.86 at about 9.30/9.45 P.M. Such incident was witnessed by PWs 4,6,7,8,9,10 and 15. Of them PWs 7 to10 appeared to be the injured who sustained injuries of different nature because of alleged overt acts by the appellants and other miscreants in course of the first incident. PW 7 was allegedly assaulted with a knife by A1 on the left side of his belly while PW 8 was stated to be assaulted by A2 with a sword-like-small-knife on the left thigh. PW 9 alleged that he was assaulted by A1 with a small sword-like-weapon at the junction of the thigh. PW 10 was said to have been assaulted with a sword like