The judgment emphasizes the need for conclusive evidence in circumstantial cases, the importance of addressing omissions in the FIR and inquest report, and the requirement for corroborative evidence.

Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated February 26,2009 and February 27,2009 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 1(12)08 arising out of Sessions Case No. 1(11)07. By virtue of the impugned judgment appellants were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each in default of which each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for commissioning of the offence punishable under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On June 10, 2007, one telephonic information regarding the death of the victim, Subhas Biswas was received by Officer-in-charge of the Gopal Nagar P.S. (P.W.25). He then after diarizing the said information in the P.S register instructed S.I. Gopal Chandra Naskar (P.W.23) to proceed to that place and investigate the matter. Thereafter, both P.W.23 and P.W.25 proceeded to the place of occurrence and on reaching there they found the dead body of the victim lying in a bleeding condition. One written complaint was then handed over by P.W.1 to P.W.25, stating therein that on that date at about 7.30 p.m. his deceased father Subhas Chandra Biswas set out from his STD booth at Akaipur market to his house at Aitpara by riding a motor cycle bearing No. WB – 26/8228. Thereafter, at about 7.50 p.m. he heard a sound of firing bullet and bomb blast and came to learn that his father had been murdered. He then proceeded towards his house along with some local people and when they reached near the house of Chitta Biswas, he saw his father lying dead with fatal bleeding injuries. It was his firm belief that Dilip (Kalu) Roy, Sanjit Roy, Jharu Roy and Kamal Hossain who set out towards his village by cycle 05 minutes before the departure of his father and who used to intimidate his father to murder him have murdered his father with the assistance of others by bombs, bullets and sharp cutting weapons.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.25 forwarded it to Gopal Nagar P.S. through constable Biswanath Mukherjee for starting a case and accordingly Gopal Nagar P.S. Case No. 134 dated June 10, 2007 under Section 302/34 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act and 9(B) of the Indian Explosive Act was started against the appellant Sanjit Roy, one Jharu Roy, Dilip Roy @ Kalu, Kamal Hossain and unknown others by ASI Provash Bhattacharjee.

4. P.W.23 held inquest over the dead body of the victim in presence of P.W.5, P.W.10, P.W.24 and one Arijit Kumar Mondal and thereafter dead body was sent to the Bongaon Sub-Divisional Hospital through P.W.20 along with dead body challan for post mortem examination.

5. Post-mortem examination over the dead body of the victim was conducted by P.W.16, Dr. Dipak Maitra on June 11, 2007 and during post-mortem examination he found two gunshot wounds measuring 1/3'' x 1/3'' each one above the other just above the right ear (over parietal bone being wound of entry and one wound of exit (of two entry) measuring 3/4'' x 3/4'' x 1½'' posterior to it (wound of exit) another gunshot wound over left axilla, wound of entry measuring 1/3'' x 1/3'' and wound of exit over right axilla measuring 3/4'' x ¾',incised wound over right anterior abdominal wall measuring about 4'' x 1½'',three incised wounds over right shoulder back (back of the right shoulder) one above another all measuring 3'' x ½'', both lower lobe of lung pierced by bullet and free blood present in thorax chest cavity of diaphragm and death in the opinion of the doctor was due to cardio respiratory failure which was due to severe haemmorrhage and shock due to above injuries, homicidal and ante mortem in nature. According to the doctor the above injuries were sufficient to cause instantaneous death of a person.

6. P.W.23 also took up investigation of the case and