Form No. J(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha

And

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

C.R.A. 651 of 2014

With

CRAN 2 of 2022

Mahesh Keshri @ Keshori

– Vs. –

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Mr. Anirban Mitra,

Mr. Amit Halder,

Mr. Amit Roy.

For the State in CRA 651 of 2014: Mr. Debasish Roy, ld. P.P.

Mrs. Amita Gaur, Mr. Atanu Ghosh,

For the State in CRAN 2 of 2022 : Mrs. Z. N. Khan,

Mr. Ashok Das.

Heard on : August 14, 2025 and August 19, 2025.

Judgment on : August 19, 2025.

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.:

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 27th

August, 2014 and order of sentence dated 28th August, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2011 arising out of Sessions Case No. 95 of 2011. The appellant was

convicted for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life.

THE PROSECUTION CASE:

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25th March, 2011, sometime around

11:00 am, the victim Mukti Bauri was found with his throat slit inside the mobile and electronic shop room of the appellant. The shop room was located in a busy market area called Chichuria under Haripur, Burdwan. There was a broken knife found at the place of occurrence, with a handle attached to one part. The appellant was allegedly seen by PW-5 and PW-6, fleeing out of the shop room with his clothes stained in blood. PW-4 and PW- 5 are stated to have informed PW-1, father of the victim/complainant, who arrived at the place of occurrence.

3. Around the same time, some shop owners in the said market area were found to be downing their shutters. A huge commotion broke out with local persons raising a hue, cry and protest. The Investigating Officer of the case (PW-12), who happened to be in the vicinity, reached the place of occurrence upon being instructed by his superiors. He found officials of Kenda Outpost of Jamuria Police Station already present and trying to control the crowds at the P.O. PW-12 also first engaged himself in controlling the crowds.

4. Inquest was conducted on the body. The witnesses to the inquest did not inform the Inquest Officer (PW-8) as to the reasons behind the murder of the victim. The appellant was named as the culprit by PW-1 and PW-7, who were witnesses to the Inquest report. The other two witnesses, namely, Satrughan Bauri and Dinobandhu Dan, were not examined by the prosecution. The body was sent for post mortem.

5. There is conflicting evidence as to where the appellant was arrested. The Investigating Officer of the case deposed that he arrested the victim at Jamuria. In cross-examination, the Investigating Officer of the case seized the victim’s apparel somewhere in the Pandaveswar area. PW-8 stated that the wearing apparel of the victim was seized at the Pandaveshwar P.S. PW- 12 explained that he had provided a fresh set of clothes to the appellant after seizure of his wearing apparel. No document of such purchase is available on record.

6. Be that as it may, the post mortem of the victim was conducted. The post mortem report indicated that the throat of the victim was slit from left to right and a portion of his left thumb was amputated in the struggle. The weapon used was a saw-like knife with a handle. The knife was found and seized, broken in two pieces. The weapon and wearing apparel were sent for forensic examination. The forensic report indicates that the wearing apparel received did not contain any blood, and was not sufficient for examination. Blood on the seized knife was stated to be human. The same was not matched with the victim’s blood group. The fingerprints of the appellant were not taken in course of the investigation to compare with any fingerprint on the knife. The investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. The charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant.

THE TRIAL AND THE EVIDENCE RECORDED: