- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1988 held before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri, in which both the appellants, Ananta Deb Adhikary and Lankeshwar Roy, were convicted under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine and default clause. In the said trial these two appellants along with 10 others were charged under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution shorn of detail is as follows:- On March 25, 1985, Bhisma Deb Roy, the deceased at about 9.30 p.m. while after meeting the Prodhan of Jhariatala Gram Panchayat and other members of the Krishak Samity was returning home in his cycle through the Kachha Rasta which is situated in the East of the river Galandi, he was attacked by the appellants and their associates who were waiting there before hand for his arrival. At night he did not return home and on the next morning, his dead body was discovered, which was lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter the police was informed and from the place of occurrence certain alleged incriminating articles and the personal belongings of the deceased were seized. In post-mortem examination, it was found that the death was homicidal in nature and the injuries, which caused the death, were ante-mortem.
(2.) There is no dispute that this is a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is now well-settled in a case based on circumstantial evidence not only the links in the chain of circumstances be proved beyond all reasonable doubts at the same time the circumstances so proved must be compatible with the guilt of the accused and the fact established must rule out likelihood the innocence of the accused.
(3.) In course of trial the prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellants. However, the defence examined none and from the trend of cross-examination and the answer given by the appellants in their cross-examination under section 313 Cr. PC. it appears the case of the defence is one of innocence and false implications.;