The importance of prompt lodgement of the First Information Report in a criminal case, the significance of unexplained delay in the lodgement of the FIR, and the crucial question of determining whether an assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether such persons entertained one or more of the common objects as specified by section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The appellants have assailed the judgement and order of conviction dated July 27, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalna, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2003 arising out of Sessions Case No. 44 of 2001 convicting the appellants under sections 147/148, 326/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the prosecution witness (PW) No. 1 had lodged a complaint with the police on August 28, 1998 with regard to murder. In the police complaint, which was subsequently marked as Exhibit 1 at the trial, the PW No. 1, as the de facto complainant, had stated that, there was a dispute continuing over the years with his nephew Sambunath Ghosh and others with Kumaresh Ghosh of his village and his teammates on purchase and consequent exercising of rights over a mango garden. There had been an altercation on the previous evening involving scuffling. At about 6.30 am in the morning, Kumaresh Ghosh and his three sons namely Keshab, Prakash, and Bikash had hurled bombs at Sambhunath Ghosh while he was cutting grass at the agricultural land. A bomb had injured the head and body of Sambhunath Ghosh as a result of which he fell on the ground. Another nephew of the PW No. 1, the de facto complainant, rushed towards the field. On the way, five named persons along with others had surrounded his nephew and hacked him with battle axe. Mohan Ghosh had directed the mob. Thereafter, Dhananjay and three sons of Kumaresh had started hurling bombs aimed at his nephew Bibhuti Ghosh to kill him. His nephew had suffered serious injuries on his right hand and leg and fell down on the ground. Thinking that, his nephew had died, the accused had entered into the home of Montu Ghosh throwing bombs randomly. They had started assaulting the ladies and went upstairs. They had snatched the licensed revolver of Montu Ghosh. They had tried to create nuisance by hurling bombs and left the village.

3. The police had received such complaint from the PW No. 1, being the de facto complainant, on August 28, 1998. The police had registered the complaint as a First Information Report being Manteswar Police Station Case No.47/98 dated August 28, 1998 under section 147/148/149/302/326/307/448/380 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of investigations, the police have submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under sections 147/148/149/148/380/326/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The trial court had framed charges under sections 147/148/149/48/380/326/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the appellants had been found guilty under sections 147/148/326/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the impugned judgement of conviction and sentenced to imprisonment and fine as appearing from the impugned order of sentence. The appellants had been acquitted of the charges under sections 448/380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that, the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants have sought to highlight the sequence of events that the prosecution claimed in respect of the incident. Post occurrence of the incident, according to the appellants, an inquest of the dead body of Sanbhu Nath Ghosh had been held between 9:15 AM and 11:15 AM on August 28, 1998. Such inquest had been done in connection with Monteswar Police Station Unnatural Death Case No. 14/1998. Such unnatural death case had been registered prior to the lodgement of the First Information Report. It has been pointed out that, the First Information Report in the present case was lodged at 16:05 hours on August 28, 1998 that is after seven hours from the start of the investigations by the police.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that, although, Sailen Ghosh (PW-7), and Madhu Ghosh (PW-4) had signed the inquest report of Sambhunath Ghosh they di