IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

CRA 242 of 2021

CRAN 1 of 2021 CRAN 2 of 2025

Dilip Dey @ Dila

Vs.

The State of West Bengal

With

CRA 729 of 2006

Manoj Singh @ Mota Manoj

Vs.

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Ms. Anita Kaunda, Adv.

[In CRA 242 of 2021] Ms. Anubrata Dutta, Adv.

[In CRA 729 of 2006] : Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP

[In CRA 242 of 2021] Ms. Sreyashree Biswas, Adv.

Mr. Asif Dewan, Adv.

[In CRA 729 of 2006] : Mr. Binoy Panda, Adv.

Mr. S. Bhakat, Adv.

Heard on : 25.08.2025 Judgment on : 24.09.2025

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated April 29, 2006 and order of sentence dated May 3, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1(2) of 2003.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In addition, the appellant Manoj Singh @ Mota Manoj was also convicted of the offences punishable under Section 25(1B) (a)/27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned order of sentence, both the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of ₹5,000/- each for committing the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Manoj Singh @ Mota Manoj was separately sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years with fine of ₹500/- for the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. The appellant Manoj Singh @ Mota Manoj was also sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants with the help of convincing evidence. He also stated that the alleged dying declaration by the victim was not proved in accordance with law. It was not established that at the time of alleged declaration, the victim was physically fit and mentally alert to record the dying declaration. Therefore, such dying declaration is not trustworthy for securing the conviction of the appellants.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the firearm was allegedly recovered from an abandoned place and there is no evidence to establish an association between the appellant and the firearm. Besides, vital witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution turned hostile rendering the case of the prosecution highly doubtful.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State stood by the impugned judgment and order. It was submitted on their behalf that the prosecution produced sufficient evidence to establish the charges against the appellants. Learned Trial Court was quite justified in convicting the appellants.

6. The victim China Deshmukh recorded a statement with the police in presence of Dr. Bijon Kumar Biswas on June 29, 2002 at SSKM Hospital. In such statement, he stated that on June 29, 2002 at about 5 o’clock in the evening he came out of his residence and went to watch a movie with his friend Samiran Seal at Shailashree Cinema Hall in the night show i.e. 8-11 p.m. After watching the movie, they were returning home walking through Akshoy Kanan. At about 11.20 p.m. suddenly, Ghatababu, Dila and Manoj Singh accompanied by 4/5 other persons chased him. In front of J-317, Akshoy Kanan Shitala Mandir, Dila and Manoj Singh shot at him, hitting on the upper portion of his left arm and upper abdomen and thereafter, both of them fled away. The informant also stated tha