Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal assailing the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Suri in Sessions Trial No. 1 of December, 1986 (Sessions Case No. 20 of 1986). 13 accused respondents faced the trial with the charge for committing offences under Sections 148/302/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and, the learned trial Court by his judgment dated 22.4.87 acquitted 12 respondents in respect of all the charges and convicted the respondent No. 3 Tarun Mondal for the offence under Sections 148 and 302 of the I.P.C. for causing murder of Amrita Dome and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 of I.P.C. and held him not guilty in respect of the charge of murder of Sultan Khan. The State has preferred the appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal of 12 respondents in respect of all the charges and acquittal of respondent Tarun Mondal for the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. for causing murder of Sultan Khan. In this connection it requires to be mentioned here that respondent No. 3 Tarun Mondal preferred an appeal before this Court against his conviction under Sections 302 and 148 of I.P.C. for causing murder of Amrita Dome but the appeal preferred by him being CRA No. 189 of 1987 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 8th July, 1992.
(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.4.84 corresponding to 13th Baisakh, 1391 B.S. at about 12 hours the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons were proceeding on foot taking away Amrita Dome and Sultan Khan with them along the kuchha road in village Pechaliya within P.S. Khairasole, and all the accused persons were assaulting the said two persons. Some of the prosecution witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased Amrita Dome tried to save Amrita Dome, but they were assaulted by the respondents and the informant Sadananda Dome (P.W. 1) was shot at by a pipegun and he sustained injuries. While the respondents were proceeding with the said two persons, Amritab Dome managed to escape from the clutches of the respondents and took shelter in the house of Monohar Mondal @ Manu Mondal (P.W. 2). The respondents chased Amrita Dome and brought him out of the house of Manu Mondal and killed him in the passage or pathway lying between the house of Manu Mondal and his nephew Sahadeb Mondal. Sultan Khan was left injured in front of Durga temple in village Pechaliya which was close to the house of Monohar Mondal. After murdering Amrita Dome the respondents went to Durga temple and murdered Sultan Khan and carried away his dead body to 'garubathan' i.e. grazing field and left his body there. Over that incident the verbal statement of Sadananda Dome (P.W. 1) was reduced into writing by the police officer on 26.4.84 at 6.05 P.M. and it was treated as FIR (ext. 3). It was sent to police station and was received there at 7.25 P.M. and on the basis of such FIR Khairasole P.S. Case No. 10 dated 26.4.84 under Sections 147/148/149/323/302 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was started against the respondents. After completing investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the respondents and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
(3.) In the trial that followed 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely, P.W. 1 Sadananda Dome (brother of deceased Amrita), P.W. 2 Monohar Mondal, P.W. 3 Smt. Menoka Dome (wife of deceased Amrita Dome), P.W. 4 Smt. Bela Badyakar, P.W. 5 Shankar Dome (father of deceased Amrita), P.W. 6 Narayan Dome, P.W. 7 Nitai Dome (brother of deceased Amrita), P.W. 8 Smt. Sailabala Dome (mother of deceased Amrita), P.W. 9 Ejahar Ali, P.W. 10 Naresh Chandra Bauri, P.W. 11 Smt. Pramila Dome (wife of brother of deceased Amrita), P.W. 12 Dr. S. Nath (autopsy surgeon), P.W. 13 Kamal Kanta Porel, P.W. 14 A.K. Ghosh (police officer) and the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) P.W. 15 Ram Lal Dey. One witness namely D.W. 1 Joydeb Garain was examined on behalf of the accused respondents. We have already mentioned the background of this appeal against the order of acquittal.;