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. 9 of 2018

Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk.

Versus

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji, Sr. Adv.

Mr. B. Samanta, Adv.

Mr. Debapriya Samanta, Adv.

Mr. S. Palit, Adv.

Mr. Samrat Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Akash Kumar Chakraborty, Adv.

Ms. Riya Saha, Adv.

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

Ms. Zareen N. Khan, Adv. Mr. Md. Kutubuddin, Adv.

Heard on : 09.12.2025 Judgment on : 11.12.2025

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order of conviction dated 06.09.2017 and 07.09.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Lalbagh, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 5(8) of 2015 in Session Case No. 43 of 2015 arising out of G.R. Case No. 82 of 2015.

2. By the said judgment and order, the Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 324/326/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, in default, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently. However, the Learned Judge did not pass any sentence for offences under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case, essential for the purpose of proper and effective disposal of this case, are as under: -

a. On the night of 07.01.2015, at about 11:15 PM, the complainant, the complainant/ Nirmal Kumar Dey’s son, Subham Dey @ Ganju and his employee Sattya Sarkar were returning home after closing the shop nearby Lalbagh Hospital. The appellant herein shot Subham Dey @ Ganju and Sattya Sarkar. The complainant tried to apprehend the appellant, but he escaped, hitting him on his face.

b. Subham Dey @ Ganju and Sattya Sarkar were taken to the hospital, where the doctor pronounced that Subham Dey @ Ganju had died and Sattya Sarkar was referred to Berhampore hospital for better management. On 08.01.2015, at about 1.15 hours, the complainant lodged the written complaint before the Murshidabad police station, resulting in registration of Murshidabad P.S. Case No. 12 of 2015 dated 08.01.2015 under Sections 325/326/302 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short ‘Arms Act’).

c. After the culmination of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet under Sections 324/326/307/302 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against the sole accused, Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. The trial commenced after framing a charge against him under the aforesaid sections, where the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the conclusion of evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

d. During the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 23 prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents marked as Exhibit 1 to 16, as well as Materials as Mat I to XV, respectively. The trend of answers given by the appellant during examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was a total denial of the alleged offence and even the defence case, as appeared from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the defence has not examined any witness.

e. The Learned Trial Court, after deliberation and analysis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and exhibits, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sections

302/307/324/326 of the IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. Mr. Mukherji, learned senior counsel representing the appellant, vehemently argu