SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment dated 30.04.2015 and order of conviction dated 04.05.2015 recorded by the learned Additional District Judge 4th Court, Suri, at Birbhum, the appellant has preferred this appeal contending inter alia that the learned Judge while passing the impugned order could not evaluate the evidence of the witnesses and the learned Court below wrongly believed that the witnesses were present at the alleged place of occurrence.
(2.) According to the appellant learned Court below had proceeded with presumption and surmise and the falsehood which had overshadowed the truth. If the assessment of evidence could have been done in its proper perspectives in that case such finding would not have been recorded by the Trial Court.
(3.) Factual matrix of the case is required to be recapitulated. Sieving doubt unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated form is such that on 06.08.2009 in the morning, the present appellant along with others went to plot No. 1000 for destroying the planted paddy, which was sowed by the victim. After getting such information the victim and his son went there and altercation took place amongst the rival parties. When altercation was going on suddenly the rival groups started hurling of bombs. In the meantime, one Sk. Piara along with some local villagers rushed to the spot and they found one person of each group was lying on the ground and sustained bomb explosion injury. The said Sk. Piara then took the victim Selim to Suri Sadar Hospital wherein he was admitted and around 12:00 to 12:30 P.M the victim died there. A written complaint was filed which was scribed by Sk. Nasibuddin.;