The conviction for murder was upheld based on eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the crime, affirming that minor inconsistencies in evidence do not undermine the core of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.

1. The subject appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 3rd November, 2016 and 4th November, 2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fastrack 4th Court, Barrackpore in Sessions Trial No. 01(12)2009 arising out of Sessions Case No. 402 of 2009. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC .

THE PROSECUTION CASE

2. On May 25, 2009, Golam Mostafa Mondal, the victim, and his wife, being PW2, went to their mango garden/orchard to unclog the water accumulated thereat, and collect the mangoes fallen thereon as a result of the cyclonic storm named ‘Aila’.

3. The appellants were found to have been stealing the fallen mangoes from the said garden. The victim is stated to have shouted at them and asked them not to steal the mangoes. They fled the scene. They came back later with arms, or picked them up from the PO, namely Shabol, Kodal, spade and other sharp cutting weapons and grievously assaulted the victim thereat. The victim died on the spot.

4. PW 1, brother of the victim lodged the written complaint on the same date. He is stated to have arrived at the spot upon hearing the hue and cry of the wife of the victim, PW 2

5. The PW 2 and PW 3 are stated to be the eyewitnesses to the assault on the victim by the appellants. The victim is stated to have shouted out ‘Maa’ (mother) before his death. Most of the prosecution witnesses are stated to have arrived at the spot upon hearing the hue and cry of PW2.

6. An inquest was conducted at the PO late in the afternoon. The inquest officer found several injuries on the middle of the head and neck of the victim, caused by sharp cutting weapons. The inquest report recorded the preliminary versions of the witnesses that that the appellant Sahajan Mondal had hit the victim with an axe on his head. As a result of this, the victim died on the spot. The inquest report also records that the appellants were stealing the mangoes from the PO.

7. Post-mortem was conducted. The cause of death is found to be homicidal. As many as eighth injuries were found on the deceased.

8. The SI Rajesh Kumar Chawhan conducted the investigation. The appellants were charge-sheeted and tried for the offence under Section 302 , IPC read with Section 34 of the . The accused Israfil Mondal was absconding.

THE EVIDENCE AND CHARGE ON RECORD

9. PW 1 is Latib Mondal. He is the brother of the victim. He is the complainant in the FIR. He has deposed that he has arrived at the PO upon hearing the hue and cry of the wife of the victim and another woman of the village. He found the victim in a pool of blood. He saw the wife of the victim hugging him and crying.

10. He came to learn from the wife of the victim that the appellants came to steal mangoes and upon being confronted by the victim, they picked up a fight with him. The appellant Mekail Mondol thereafter took a spade from the PO and attacked the victim. The other appellants Sahajahan Mondol hit the victim with a Shabol and Fateh Ali Mondol hit the victim on his face, neck, and head. He deposed that the appellant Ismail Modal exhorted the other appellants to beat the vic