- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Sole appellant is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6.3.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 191/2002 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.2.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jangipur, Murshidabad, in Sessions Case No. 49/99/Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2000, convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, was dismissed.
(3.) The occurrence took place at about 1.30 p.m. on 29th September, 1990 in a village known as Jindighi in the District of Murshidabad. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Alimat alias Aliul Zaman, younger brother of the first informat Badiujjaman (PW-1), along with one Samir Seikh (PW-2) had gone to the said village for purchasing paddy. He did not find any paddy and walked around with the appellant in that village. While returning home along the westren side of the village when he reached near the house of one Surath Dewan (PW-4), Surath Dewan began talking with him. One Samir Seikh (PW-2) was also with the appellant at that time. When PW-2 Samir Seikh had walked about 60 cubits away from the deceased, he met Giyasuddin who was coming from the opposite direction. PW-2 stated that when he looked behind, found that although the appellant and the deceased were walking together, the appellant suddenly became agitated and stabbed the deceased on his chest with a knife. On being informed of the said incident, the first informat Badiujjaman (PW-1) went to the said village. Indisputably the first information report was lodged at 0615 hours on 30th September, 1990. The prosecution in support of its case, besides examining the first informat Badiujjaman (PW-1), also examined Samir Seikh (PW-2) and Gias Seikh (PW-3) who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court relied on the testimonies of the said eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 and convicted the appellant for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.;