The main legal point established is that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not affect their credibility, and the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC was crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.

1. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated May 10, 2012 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. 1 (January) 2009 arising out of Sessions Case No. 84(7)2006. By virtue of the impugned judgment appellants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months each for commissioning of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) with a direction that if the fine is realized then it should be handed over to Sukumar Ghosh entirely under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). Appellants were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for commissioning of the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC with a direction that if fine is realized then it should be handed over to Sukumar Ghosh and Judhisthir Ghosh equally. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. While accused Narayan Ghosh was acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 302/34 IPC as also under section 324/34 IPC.

2. The backdrop of the prosecution case is discussed in a nutshell hereunder:-

On March 7, 2005, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the officer-in-charge, Nakashipara P.S., District Nadia stating that about four years ago his nephew Subhas Ghosh got married with P.W.7, daughter of appellant Sadhan Ghosh of their village and as their marriage was love marriage so, just after the marriage there was no conversation between two families. On March 6, 2005 at about 10 a.m. there was some family dispute with P.W.7 and due to this at about 3.30 p.m. father of P.W.7 namely Sadhan Ghosh, her elder brother Ratan Ghosh, Habu Ghosh, Tarak Ghosh, Narayan Ghosh, Bidhan Ghosh and her mother Arati Ghosh attacked them with dao and jhupo (used for catching fish) as a result his nephew Byomkesh Ghosh died on the spot and elder brother Sukumar Ghosh(P.W.14) and nephew Judhisthir (P.W.15) sustained severe bleeding injures and were admitted in Bethuadahari Hospital.

On the basis of the above written complaint, scribed by P.W.13, Nakashipara P.S. Case No. 62/2005 dated March 7, 2005 was started by P.W.21 against the appellants as also Narayan Ghosh and Arati Ghoshunder Section 302/326/34 IPC and the case was endorsed to P.W.22 for investigation who then investigated this case and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet being No. 85 dated April 27, 2005 under Section 302/326/34 IPC only against the appellants and Narayan Ghosh.

3. Charges were framed on January 2, 2009 against the appellants as also Narayan Ghosh under Section 326/34 IPC and 302/34 IPC and after denial of their involvement in the crime, trial commenced.

4. Prosecution examined 23 witnesses and also produced and proved certain documents and articles and thereafter on completion of trial and after examination of the appellants as also Narayan Ghosh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the impugned judgment was passed.

5. Mr. Dipak Sengupta, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in law due to material discrepancies and contradictions in between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the involvement of the appellants, the role played by them as also the nature of the weapon used in the commission of the offence, non reliability of the evidence of P.W.7 being not made voluntarily, doubt with regard to the place of occurrence, non disclosure of the name of the appellants before the doctor as assailant, arm being not show