Eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence can be relied upon to establish the cause of death and the guilt of the accused in a murder case, even in the presence of a defense of enmity.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. The appellants have assailed the judgment of conviction dated February 10, 2022 and the order of sentence dated February 11, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Trial No. 40 (3)/2017 arising out of Sessions Case No. 23/2017.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction the appellants had been found guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence the appellants had been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The case of the prosecution at the trial was that, the appellants had on March 24, 2015 at about 11 PM at Subhasnagar under Chopra Police Station, Uttar Dinajpur, with common intention committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of Sona Mohanta.

4. Police had received the written complaint dated March 25, 2015 from Prosecution Witness (PW) 1 stating that, her son indulged in a quarrel with the appellants. The appellants had threatened to murder her son. After that incident, her family had avoided meeting and talking to the families of the appellants. On March 24, 2015 in the morning, her son and one Bikash Debnath had gone somewhere around Kharibari of District Darjeeling to deliver tea leaves in a pickup vehicle. At around 9 PM, the appellants had come to her house and woke her up and started searching for someone in the room of her son. On inquiry, they had asked about the whereabouts of her son when she informed them that her son did not return yet. They had started abusing her and told her that they would kill her son that day and left her house. Around 11 PM in the night after her son and Bikash had returned home, she had locked the grill. After sometime the appellants had came to her house and asked her to open the lock from the grill. They had started to break the lock with a brick lying in her veranda. She had denied to open the lock. When they had failed trying to break the lock, they brought one crowbar from their house and after breaking the lock they had started assaulting her son on his chest and back with the crowbar. Bikash and she had tried to protect her son. They had also hit them and dragged her son out. Even after trying hard they could not save her son from the appellants. Later she had started searching for her son in different ways. Around 12 O'clock in the night with the help of truck's headlight she had found that her son was lying over NH-31 near Subhashnagar Durga Mandir. Bikash and she had taken her son to the Hospital. Doctor had declared her son dead. She had understood that, after beating her son with crowbar in his chest, abdomen and back, when her son died with huge loss of blood from nose, mouth and ears, the appellants threw her son on the NH-31. The appellants had murdered her son by assaulting her son with a crowbar.

5. Police had registered a First Information Report (FIR) being Chopra Police Station FIR No. 355/15 dated March 25, 2015 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On Completion of the investigations, police had submitted the charge sheet against the appellants. Court had framed charges as against the appellants on March 29, 2017 under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants had pleaded to be not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. At the trial, prosecution had examined 13 witnesses. Prosecution had also relied upon various documentary and material evidences in order to bring home the charges as against the appellants.

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the cause of death of the victim was not established by the prosecution at the trial. He has referred to the deposition of the doctor conducting the post mortem on the victim being PW 10. He has submitted that, PW 10 stated in cross examination that the death of the victim might be homicidal or acciden