JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.01.2015 and 30.01.2015 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Bolpur, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 1 (August) of 2014, arising out of Sessions Case No. 67 of 2013 convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.

2. Prosecution case alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 20.09.2009 at about 1 pm, residents of Lalpool, Line Par namely Sk Alam, his wife Afroza Bibi, his elder daughter-in-law Sakina Bibi, son Nayeem Sk and Nazir Molla, son of Late Raghu Molla, Bapi Sk, Sk Tinku and others called the victim Sk Asif alias Babunia, to the house of the aforesaid Sk Alam intending to murder him out of grudge and malice. The complainant’s wife, sister and mother-in-law hastened to the house of Sk Alam as a result of the clamour and saw Sk Alam and others as aforenamed assaulting his son with deadly weapons screaming to kill him vociferating that the victim cannot be allowed to live. The complainant’s wife, sister and mother-in-law implored for his son’s life but in vain. They too were hurt and in their presence the victim was killed. The complainant learnt about the incident on his return to home. He prayed for the punishment of the miscreants who had brutally murdered his son in presence of his mother, sister and grandmother. The complaint was scribed by Sk Selim dictated by the complainant Sk Abul duly signed by Sk Selim and Sk Nazrul.

3. Based on the aforesaid written complaint Bolpur PS case No.163/09 dated 20.09.2009 was registered under Sections 302/34 against Sk Alam, son of Late Khudu Sk, Afroza wife of Sk Alam , Sakina Bibi, Nayeem Sk son of Sk Alam, Nazir Molla son of Late Raghu Molla, Bapi Sk son of Karim Sk, Sk Tinku Son of Sk Sattar and others. Investigation ended in the submission of the chargesheet on 18.12.2009. Charge was framed against Sk Alam, Nayeem Sk, Sakina Bibi, Sk Tinku, Sk Sabir and Afroza Bibi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried on 11th August, 2014.

4. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence of the offence. Proper evidence was not adduced to identify the place of occurrence. It was discriminatory to hold 3 out of 6 accused persons to be guilty in exclusion of others. The prosecution evidence was entirely based on the deposition of PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6 being the close relatives of the victim exacerbated with exaggerations liable to be disbelieved.

5. The prosecution evidence was impacted with contradictions and embellishments to be discredited. The seized offending weapons were not examined through the fingerprint expert to ascertain the involvement of the appellants in the alleged offence. The motive to commit the crime was not proved by the prosecution, neither any independent witness or passerby was brought forth to depose in the case as the offence was committed in the broad day light.

6. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

7. The Ld. Advocate for the State submitted that the prosecution witnesses in unison narrated the ghastly incident and identified the place of occurrence of the offence and the manner in which the crime was committed. The offending weapons were recovered, the wearing apparels were seized. The medical report confirmed the injuries inflicted on the victim involving the offending weapon. The evidence of prosecution witnesses majorly being the close relatives of the victim cannot be disregarded. The prosecution has been successful to establish its case and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. PW 1 Sk Abul the father of the victim stated that on 20th September, 2009 at about 1 pm he was informed that his son was murdered by someone in the house of Alam Sk. He r