- (1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.7.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, 24 parganas (South) in Sessions Trial 07(08) of 1986, thereby convicting the appellants for committing offences punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer R.I for life.
(2.) One Bhola Nath Mondal (since deceased) lodged one F.I.R. with Basanti Police station on 6.8.1983 at 15.00 hours alleging therein that on 6.8.1983 at about 10.30 A.M. while Ratan Mondal and Manik Paik were returning to their respective houses after informing local people to assist them in the cultivation work, the appellants obstructed Ratan Mondal infront the house of Manik Paik and assaulted him with dagger on different parts of his body. The appellants fled away when the lodger of the F.I.R. appeared on the scene together with his mother, Gopal and Co-villagers. Ratan Mondal succumbed to the injuries caused by the appellants. The lodger of the F.I.R. Bhola Nath Mondal was killed after initiation of the case and, as a result, could not be examined as a witness. The F.I.R. he lodged was despatched to the nearest Magistrate on 7.8.1983 at 08.00 hours. The case was registered as Basanti Police station case no. 2 dated 6.8.1983 under section 302/24 of the IPC against the appellants who claimed not guilty to the charges framed against them by the learned Trial Court. In Course of trial, the learned Trial Court recorded evidence of 18 prosecution witnesses including three eye witnesses, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Ratan Mondal and the investigation officer of the case. The F.I.R. was marked as exhibit 4. The inquest report of the dead body of Ratan Mondal was also admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit 5. The sketch map of the Place of occurrence prepared by the investigation officer was marked as Exhibit 8. The statement of Manik Ali Paik (P.W. 1) recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was admitted into in evidence and marked Exhibit 9.
(3.) The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence recorded by it and upon consideration of documentary evidence placed before it came to a conclusion that the prosecution brought home the charges against the appellants and, accordingly, recorded their conviction and sentence which is impugned in this appeal.;