IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak &

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas C.R.A. 22 of 2021 With IA No: CRAN 1/2025 Ganesh Chandra Das -Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellants : Mr. Meenal Sinha, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Adv., Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : August 4, 2025 Judgment On : August 27, 2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 22.06.2016 and 23.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Contai in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1/January/2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 10th October, 2014 is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellant.

4. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of this appeal are as follows-

“The instant case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant stating inter alia, that on 08.06.2014 when the victim Somnath Das was playing in the courtyard of the accused Ganesh Chandra Das with Ishan Jana at around 7 in the morning, then this appellant assaulted the victim Somnath Das with a ‘mugur’ on his head. As a result, the victim Somnath fell on the ground with severe bleeding injuries. Immediate to the incident the victim was taken to Balishai Primary Health Centre and from there, he was shifted to Contai Sub-Division Hospital. Ultimately, the victim was referred to Calcutta but he died before he could get there. Autopsy of the victim was done in Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital. Over the complaint, case being Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 124/14 dated 08.06.2014 was initiated under Sections

341/325/302 of the Indian Penal Code.”

5. Thus, the criminal law was set in motion. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 341/325/302 of the Indian Penal code.

6. Charge was framed by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against this accused person.

7. In order to establish the charge, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and documents and the articles seized were marked as exhibits in this case on its behalf. Neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence was adduced by the side of the defence.

8. Mr. Meenal Sinha, learned Advocate for the appellant has said that the motive and intention of the accused in this case was not established by the prosecution and there is no sufficient oral and documentary evidences on record for which the impugned judgment and order of conviction may be set aside. It is further assailed by the learned Advocate that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive against the appellant in committing such offence as allegedly done by the present appellant which is nothing but conjectured and surmised story created by the prosecution side.

9. It is further contended by the learned Advocate that on a total assessment on the evidence on record it would appear that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge leveled against this appellant beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt. The theory of last scene together has not been established by the prosecution or by any of the witnesses cited on behalf of the State. So, it is said that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court may set aside.

10. Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, learned Advocate for the State has said that there is no material in the case record for which the impugned judgment and order of conviction may be in