IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRA No. 787 of 2009 Nanu @ Narayan Adhikary Vs.

State of West Bengal Before: The Hon’ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj &

The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray For the Appellant : Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Ms. Sukla Das Chandra, Adv.

Mr. B. Seth, Adv. Ms. S. Saha, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Adv.

CAV On : 14.05.2025 Judgment On : 04.07.2025 Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :-

1. The instant appeal was filed by the appellant against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2008/21.6.2008 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Siliguri in Sessions trial No. 04 of 2006 arising out of Sessions Case No. 50 (S) of 1998 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.

5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 5 months.

2. The Learned Counsel Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Learned Trial Judge did not consider several factual aspects. According to him, the FIR was lodged by the father after two days of the incident without giving an explanation in the FIR. Secondly, the scribe, the elder brother of the appellant, and his wife, the person namely Naren @ Nagen Babu and other in-laws of the victim or the appellant were not examined. Thirdly, there was no investigation from the date of 11.01.1998 to 13.01.1998. No admission register, bedhead ticket have been seized by the I.O. Fourthly, dying declaration was recorded without certifying whether the victim was able to make such declaration or not. Fifthly, neither any nurse nor any doctor has been made a charge-sheet witness. Sixthly, there are serious discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses. Seventhly, the Learned Trial Judge completely ruled out the probabilities of last seen together and circumstantial evidence. Eighthly, the Learned Trial Judge completely failed to consider that the place of occurrence has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Ninthly, the Learned Trial Judge did not consider that the occurrence of suicide and/or murder by someone else cannot be ruled out in view of the deposition of the investigating officer, the PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW4 and others. Tenthly, the dying declaration allegedly made by the victim was taken in a printed form.

3. The Learned Counsel has relied upon several judicial decisions. According to him, in AIR 1973 SC 501, Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe the importance of First Information Report in a criminal case as a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. It is also held therein that the importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused.

4. The object of insisting upon a prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain an early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by him as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the time at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of after-thought.

5. The Learned Counsel of the Appellant has also relied upon the judicial decision reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 957, State of U.P. v. Shishupal Singh in support of his contention that conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration, provided it is free from infirmities and capable of acceptance by the Court. If there are suspicious circumstances, conviction solely upon such dying declaration is deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to another case law reported in (2009) 12 SCC 498 Kantilal v. State of Rajasth