SANKAR ACHARYYA,J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by two appellants Kamala @ Rahim Ali Sk. (A -1) and Md. Kayum Ali Sk. @ Julfikar (A -2) against the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2005 and order of sentence dated 13.01.2005 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/ - each in default of payment of fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for six months of the charge under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 6 (2) 2004 arising out of Sessions Case No. 102 (7) 03.
(2.) In the trial Court, out of three accused persons one Bhola @ Ichaque Sk. remained absconding and did not face the trial. His case was splitted up and the two appellants of this appeal faced the trial and after full trial they were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34, I.P.C.. During pendency of this appeal A -2 claimed that at the time of alleged occurrence he was a juvenile. On his prayer for determination of his age under the provision of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Rules framed thereunder an enquiry was held by the trial Court under order passed in this appeal. After enquiry report was submitted with finding that Md. Kayum Ali Sk. @ Julfikar was major by age on the date of occurrence being the 22nd October, 2002. Subsequent to receipt of such report the application being CRAN 2012 of 2009 of A -2 for determination of age of the A -2 was not pressed and dismissed on 28.08.2015. Both the appellants are detained in correctional home as convicts.
(3.) Inter alia, in the petition of appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment under appeal (hereinafter called as impugned judgment) that learned Judge in the trial Court failed to appreciate the flaws appearing in the depositions of the witnesses examined by prosecution during trial and accepted the evidence of prosecution mechanically. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain portions of depositions of witnesses of prosecution claiming that the witnesses contradicted the prosecution story and that the case against the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt for which the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve acquittal of the charge framed against them in the trial Court. In the impugned judgment the trial Court believed that prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence adduced by prosecution and accordingly convicted and sentenced to the appellants under Section 302/34, I.P.C.;