TAPAN SEN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15/5/2007 and the Order of sentence dated 16/5/2007, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court at Baruipur, held that the Appellant no. 1 Dipankar Mridha was guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Appellant No.2, Arun Mondal was guilty under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Both the Appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and were directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The detention already undergone by the Appellant No.1 from 19/1/2004 to 19/8/2004 and the detention already undergone by the Appellant No.2 Arun Mondal from 30/9/2002 to 30/12/2002 were ordered to be set off.
(2.) THE case arises out of a First Information Report on the basis of a written report lodged on 26/4/2002 at 20.30 hours by one Achintya Howli (P.W.1) wherein he alleged that his daughter Karabi Howli, aged 16/17 years, had a love affair with his neighbour Dipankar Mridha (Appellant No.1) for about a year and taking undue advantage of the same, carried out an illicit relationship with her and as a result thereof, she became pregnant. When Dipankar Mridha (Appellant no.1) came to know about this, he and his friend Arun Mondal (Appellant no.2) started pressurisng his daughter and on 15/4/2002, while both were passing by the side of the house of the informant, they threatened her in various ways and on the same day in the night, they called out the informant 's daughter by giving her ''temptation of marriage ''. That night, the informant 's daughter was found hanging in a bamboo grove with a rope around her neck. Upon a perusal of the said written report, it is evident that the alleged incident took place in the night on 15/16.04.2002 and the informant, while concluding, stated that on the said day he was not at home. Before proceeding with this case, it would be relevant to point out that about 10/11 days ago, i.e. on 16/4/2002, another written complaint was made to the Officerin - Charge of Gosaba Police Station by one Amiya Howli (P.W.3) who stated that on 15/4/2002, at midnight, his niece Karabi Howali had committed suicide by hanging herself with a rope around her neck in the bamboo grove situated adjacent to their house. That written complaint is at page 2 of the Paper Book and it shows that it was lodged immediately on the following day i.e. on 16/4/2002. Yet surprisingly, for 10/11 days, nothing happened and abruptly, on 26/4/2002 the First Information Report was lodged, which gave rise to Gosaba Police Station Case no. 12 dated 26/4/2002. From the formal F.I.R., it is noticed that on 16/4/2002, acting on the basis of the first written complaint, a U.D. case being U.D. Case No. 14 had been registered. In the F.I.R., the Appellant no.1 and the Appellant no.2 were shown as accused. Having thus narrated the sequence of events in the manner stated above, it would now be to apt to proceed to deal with the evidences on record, but before doing so, we must express an observation to the effect that we have noticed that there was a delay of about 10/11 days in lodging the F.I.R. from the time when the instant case was described as a case of suicide. Eleven days thereafter, the case was made to take a turn by attempting to show the implication of these Appellants. The other observation that we would like to make is that even at the time when the case was being lodged as a regular F.I.R., it was so registered under Sections 376/306 of the Indian Penal Code and no allegations and/or ingredients were included so as to attract the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a well known concept of criminal jurisprudence that when an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is being dealt with, the prosecution must be able to establish beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt that the accused, and the accused alone, committed the offence in a cool, calculated, planned and motivated manner.
(3.) IN the instant case, we notice that in the first written complaint, there was only an indication of suicide whereas in the written complaint, which formed the basis of the F.I.R., the case was registered under Sections 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code.;