The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and corroborated eyewitness testimony, along with medical evidence, to prove the guilt of the accused and dismiss improbable defense claims.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

2. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 26.07.2016 and 27.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Court, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur in Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2010 arising out of Sessions Case No. 284 of 2010 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for two years more.

3. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 02.04.2010 at night, Kartick Mondal was sleeping in the varendah of his house with his wife namely, Rubi Mondal (PW 1). Appellant, who is the brother of Kartick, suddenly attacked him with a ramda. Hearing his groaning sound, Rubi woke up and saw the incident in the light of a battery charged lamp. Appellant fled away from the spot. On the written complaint of Rubi Mondal (PW 1), Tapan Police Station Case No. 70 of 2010 dated 02.04.2010 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation. In the course of investigation, appellant was arrested. Battery charged lamp and blood stained mosquito net were seized. Upon collecting post-mortem report, charge-sheet was filed. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. It was his specific defence that Kartick had been murdered by some other person and he was falsely implicated. He, however, did not adduce defence evidence to probabilise such plea. In conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge by the judgment and order dated 26.07.2016 and 27.07.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

4. Mr. Jayanta Samanta, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits the eyewitnesses are not reliable. It is doubtful whether PW 1 was sleeping with her husband in the verandah. Presence of light at the place of occurrence has also not been proved. Evidence of the daughter of the deceased (PW 2) who was sleeping inside the room also suffers from various improbabilities. She was sleeping inside the room and could not have seen the incident. Presence of PWs. 3 and 4 at the place of occurrence is most doubtful. Their presence at place of occurrence is not noted in the FIR and PW 4 in cross-examination claimed he was hospitalised in the morning due to assault by the appellant. Motive to commit the crime has not been proved. On the other hand, evidence has come on record deceased had inimical relationship with one Ganga Gain and the latter had filed a criminal case against the deceased. Ocular version of the eyewitnesses is not supported by medical evidence. Post-mortem doctor found extensive incised as well as lacerated injuries on the body of the deceased. This improbabilises assault by a single person. Blood stained earth collected from the place of occurrence was not sent for FSL examination. There is delay in seizure of the lamp as well as mosquito net. Hence, manner and circumstance in which the murder took place has not been proved. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

5. Per contra, Mr. Parthapratim Das, learned Advocate, appearing for the State submits that wife of the deceased (PW 1) has graphically narrated the brutal assault upon her husband by the appellant. She saw the incident in the light of a battery charged lamp. Her version is corroborated by her daughter (PW 2) and other family members i.e. her sister-in-law (PW 3) and brother-in-law (PW 4). Local people including PW 5 rushed to the spot and heard the incident from PW 1. PW 1 stated that the appellant was hitting the victim with a ramda