The Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the Appellants were guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302/34 IPC.

Tapash Mookherjee, J.

1. The judgment and order dated 28.10.2009 and 30.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Lalbagh at Murshidabad in Sessions Case No. 18/2003 (Sessions Trial No. 1/August/2003) are under challenged in the present appeal. By the aforesaid judgment and order learned Trial Court convicted all the Appellants of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced the Appellants to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees two thousand only) each I.D. to suffer R.I. for one month more.

2. The facts leading to the Appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:-

3. One Jalaluddin Sk. used to run a Video Hall in his house along with his two partners namely, Sadagar Sk and Alauddin Sk. who are two of the Appellants in the case. In the night of 24.05.1996 the said Jalaluddin Sk. along with his partners named above went to attend an invitation of Anarul Sk. who was also an owner of a Video Hall. Thereafter while the said Jalaluddin had been returning to his village in the mid-night he was attacked by the Appellants on the way near to the Ferry Ghat of the river Bhairab. During such attack the Appellants assaulted Jalaluddin by sharp weapons and thus caused severe injuries and Jalaluddin succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Now, Miran Sk. a brother of the victim Jalaluddin with some of his co-villagers had been gossiping together near to the place of occurrence and hearing hue and cries they rushed to the spot and witnessed the incidents of assaults and they could manage to apprehend the Appellants Sadagar Sk. and Bablu Sk. but ultimately those Appellants managed to escape. A year before the incident another brother of the deceased Jalaluddin was murdered by some of the the Appellants and Jalaluddin tried to get those Appellants arrested by the police in connection with that murder case and such acts against the Appellants was the cause of the murder of Jalaluddin. Within a short period after the incident of murder the deceased’s brother Miran Sk. submitted a written complaint on the spot to the Officer-in-Charge of Murshidabad P.S. and alleged therein all the aforesaid incidents and on the basis of such complaint Murshidabad P.S. Case No. 53/1996 dated 25.05.1996 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. had been started against sixteen accused persons including the present Appellants.

4. After completion of investigation charge sheet under Section 302/34 I.P.C. had been submitted against seventeen accused persons including the Appellants.

5. After commitment, the case had been transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Lalbug at Murshidabad, for trial. Considering the evidence collected during the investigation charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. had been framed against seventeen accused persons including the Appellants. The Appellants denied the charge, pleaded their innocence and claimed trial. During trial one of the accused persons namely, Kuddus Kha died and another accused namely, Hafijus Kha absconded. Three accused persons namely, Nirmal Mondal, Nathuram Mondal and Anarul Mondal had been acquitted. So, twelve convicted persons filed this appeal and during the pendency of the appeal the Appellant Latif Kha died.

6. To prove their case, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses and proved some documents as well. Defence tendered no evidence whatsoever.

7. Having considered the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned Trial Court found all the Appellants guilty of the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced the Appellants to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees two thousand only) each I.D. to suffer S.I. for one month more. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment and order of sentence the convicts filed the present appeal.

8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Basu appearing for the Appellants submitted that the names of th