IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial in culpable homicide cases, affecting the applicability of Section 304 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Paschim Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. 35 of December, 2002 which arose out of G.R. Case No. 1385/98, convicting thereby the appellants for commission of offences punishable under 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months each.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 06.07.1998 at around 20:05, one Sandhya Singh, widow of late Krishna Singh, lodged a written complaint at Kharagpur Local Police Station inter alia stating on the same day, i.e. on 06.07.1998, in the morning the appellants along with other persons led by one Sambhu Dey assaulted Krishna Singh and as such he sustained grievous injury on his leg at the playground of Madpur market. Thereafter the said Krishna Singh was transmitted to Kharagpur Hospital for treatment where he subsequently died.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint lodged by the de facto complainant Kharagpur (Local) Police Station Case No. 131/98 dated 06.07.1998 under Sections 147/148/149 and Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated.

4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on 28.03.1999 bearing No. 48/99 dated 28.03.1999 under Sections 147/148/325 adding Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against Raju Guchhait, Shatrughna Atta, Kista Aigon, Bharat Atta, Ramu Atta, Lachman Atta, Shiba Prasad Dey, Nidha Atta and Ganesh Dey and discharged the name of Sambhu Dey under whose leadership the incident took place, from the instant case.

5. Charges under Section 147/148/149/325 adding Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

7. Considered the submissions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant as stated in the written notes of argument explicitly stating the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8. The Learned Advocate for the State submitted charges to have been framed against 9 accused persons. The evidence was recorded after 8 years of the occurrence of the incident resulting in the death of the victim which led to minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses owing to considerable gap between the date of the incident and the date of recording of evidence as human memory is susceptible to falter with lapse of time.

9. It was further contented that the entire incident of assault on the victim was premeditated and not instantaneous on spur of moment. It was not necessary for the inquest report to reveal the name of the assailants which, however, depicted the nature of injuries which corroborated with the evidence of the doctor, i.e. PW-8. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 was corroborative in nature, conforming the fact of the victim being taken to a different place from his residence where he was assaulted severely establishing the fact of “last seen together”.

10. The witnesses who turned hostile had initially supported the prosecution case. Evidently, the victim suffered injuries and the cause of the same was unexplained by the defence. The prosecution was able to prove its case and, therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed.

11. The impugned judgment dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Paschim Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. 35, inter alia, stated that:

“In this case I find that charge u/S. 304 Part-I, I.P.C. was framed against these accused persons but the two accused persons have been convicted u/S. 304 Part-II I.P.C. which is minor to offence u/S. 304 Part-I I.P.C. So, in view of Sec. 222(1) Cr.P.C. that there is no bar to con