- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 16.9.2009 in Sessions Trial No. V (November), 2006 arising out of Sessions Case no. 17(8) of 2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 3, Kalyani whereby the appellants Jitu Basak and Ali Mondal were convicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 307/326/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and three years for the offences under Sections 307/326 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and 1000/- with a direction that sentence of imprisonment would run concurrently.
(2.) On 31.5.2005 at about 13.20 hours one F.I.R. was lodged by Sankar Khan in Haringhata police station alleging therein that on 30.5.2005 at about 10.45 P.M. his elder brother Biswanath, after completing business dealings with Somnath Banerjee infront of Kalyani housing, had gone towards Dankuni milk plants in a mini dor vehicle (W.B. 37 A/5018) belonging to Swapan Basak. The appellant Jitu Basak was driving the vehicle. The appellant Ali Mondal and two other persons were accompanying him. Biswanath Khan had quarrel with them over business matter on his way to Dankuni milk plants. The appellants and their associates assaulted Biswanath on his head with the intention to kill him after tying up his hands and legs. They also dumped him by the side of road near kalyani crossing of N.H. 34 in unconscious state. The local people rescued him and had taken him to Jaguli hospital wherefrom he was sent to Kalyani J. N. Hospital. Sakar Khan, the lodger of the F.I.R., was informed about the incident by Biswanath in the hospital. On the basis of said F.I.R., Haringhata police station case no. 111 dated 31.5.2005 was started and investigated into. On conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and two others under Sections 307,326/34 of the I.P.C The case was tried in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court no. 1 at Kalyani. The appellant and two others pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the Trial Court and, accordingly the trial commenced. In course of trial, 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The F.I.R., Seizure lists, injury report, medical papers and rough sketch map of the place of occurrence were admitted into evidence and marked Ex. on behalf of the prosecution. The appellants and other two accused persons examined two witnesses on their behalf. However, no document on their behalf was admitted into evidence and marked Ex.
(3.) The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record found that amongst the accused persons, the appellant Jitu and Ali committed the offences under Sections 307,326/34 of I.P.C. and accordingly passed the order of conviction and sentence mentioned earlier.;