- (1.) This appeal was directed against the judgment dated 28.1.2000 and the order of conviction dated 29.1.2000 passed by Sri S.N. Ghosh, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Hooghly in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 92 of 1991 arising out of Chanditala Police Station Case No. 10 dated 17.5.1986. The learned trial Judge was pleased to find the accused appellant Basudeb Sharma guilty for committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and the other remaining five accused appellants for committing offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentence all of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of such fine a further rigorous imprisonment for a term of one month each.
(2.) It is stated in the memo of appeal that the learned trial Judge committed miscarriage of justice by convicting the appellants on the basis of the materials brought on record. It is also pointed out that the medical report does not support the prosecution case and the ocular evidence of the witnesses. It is also stated that there are serious contradictions in evidence of the witnesses. It is further stated that immediately after the occurrence one Dilip Kumar Pakhira had virtually informed the police about the incident and in pursuance thereof the police went to the place of occurrence, but neither the said Dilip Kumar Pakhira had been examined by the prosecution nor his statement allegedly recorded and reduced to the G.D. Entry had been produced before the Court. It is also stated that the F.I.R. prepared subsequently on the basis of the statement of the P.W. 1 after the G.D. lodged by Dilip Kumar Pakhira is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it casts a grave shadow of doubt over the prosecution case itself which against supports the defence case that the incident did not take at the place, time and the manner as alleged by the prosecution and also that the case is the outcome of false accusation out of political rivalry. It is further stated that the examination of the accused persons by the learned trial Judge under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also devoid of the very principle of the object of offering an opportunity to an accused to explain the circumstances appearing from the evidence against him.
(3.) It appears from the record that the learned trial Judge was pleased to frame charge against the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. when they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.;