The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness and medical evidence, establishing clear intent under Section 302 IPC.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated December 16, 2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3 rd Fast Track Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Trial Case No. 49/04 arising out of Sessions Case No. 84/04 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on March 8, 2004 at about 16:30 hrs there was an altercation between the appellant and the victim, Sanjib Kujur, in front of the shop of Dinesh at Dhira Line, Naya Salee Tea Garden over the issue of Panchyat affairs and in course of altercation appellant struck the victim with a khukri on his head and neck causing severe cut and bleeding injuries therefrom and then fled away seeing the people rushing there. The victim was then shifted to Naya Salee Tea Garden Hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’ by the attending Doctor.

3. P.W.1, father of victim, then lodged a complaint at the Nagrakata P.S. and accordingly on the basis of the said complaint a Nagrakata P.S. case no.10 dated March 8, 2004 under S.302 IPC was started against the appellant by P.W.15 and the case was endorsed to P.W.18 for investigation who then after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under S.302 .

4. On August 10, 2004 charge under S.302 IPC was framed against the appellant and on his pleading not guilty trial commenced.

5. Prosecution examined 18 (eighteen) witnesses and also produced and proved certain documents namely the written complaint, formal FIR, rough sketch map with index, seizure lists, inquest report, post - mortem report, dead body challan, statements recorded under S.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), FSL report etc. besides the wearing apparels and the weapon of offence and thereafter on completion of trial and after examination of the accused - appellant under S.313 Cr.P.C. learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment.

6. It was submitted by Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the impugned order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law due to withholding of the first information to the police about the incident, contradiction with regard to the place where the complaint was written, omission of name of the person in the FIR as also the inquest report who saw the incident, delay in recording the statements under S.164 Cr.P.C., non labelling of the khukri after seizure and improper question put to the appellant during his examination under S.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to his involvement in the crime amongst others. Alternatively it was submitted by Mr. P.S. Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the offence under S.302 IPC was not proved against the appellant beyond doubt and the provisions of S.304 part I at best may be attracted as there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant had any intention to kill the deceased rather it happened at the heat of the moment during altercation.

7. Mr. Bhattacharya relied upon the decision in the matter of Ram Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1975 SCC (Cri) 225 and Arjun and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh report