JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated March 31, 2022 and the order of sentence dated April 1, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Suri, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No.02/January/2017 arising out of Sessions Case No.86 of 2016.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the learned Judge found the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Judge sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The learned Judge awarded simple imprisonment for one year to the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Police received a written complaint from prosecution witness (P.W.) 1 on April 13, 2014 regarding murder of her husband. On the basis of such written complaint, police registered Sainthia Police Station FIR No.94/14 dated April 13, 2014 under Sections 147/148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and three other persons on November 14, 2014. Two of the accused were found to be juvenile and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. Court framed charges as against the two appellants and one person on January 24, 2017. The appellants and the third person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial one accused expired on July 31, 2020.

5. At the trial, the case of the prosecution was that, the appellants along with three others murdered the victim, who was the husband of P.W.1, on April 12, 2014 at about 10 p.m. in front of the house of the victim. The appellants along with three others were members of an unlawful assembly, committed an offence of rioting with deadly weapons, acted in prosecution of common object of murdering the victim.

6. At the trial, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and relied upon various documentary and material evidences to bring home the charges as against the appellants. On conclusion of the evidences of the prosecution, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the appellants pleaded not guilty and falsely implicated.

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the prosecution was unable to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that, the so-called eyewitnesses are relatives of the victim. He refers to the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He contends that, there were embellishment in the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

8. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the written complaint and the deposition of the maker of such written complaint being P.W.1. According to him, P.W.1 claimed to be an eyewitness for the first time in Court. Such claim did not appear in the written complaint.

9. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the P.W.6 who claimed himself to be another eye-witness is a chance witness. According to him, testimony of a chance witness should not be readily accepted.

10. Referring to the versions of the incident given by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, there were major discrepancies in their statements. According to him, the versions of the incident are different.

11. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the weapons of assault were not recovered. No opinion was obtained from the post-mortem doctor as to the cause of death through the alleged weapons of assault.

12. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the post-mortem doctor in his testimony never opined that the injuries were sufficient