Sankar Acharyya, J. - (1.) Three appellants Sankar Roy, Bapi Roy and Mahadeb Halder have jointly filed this appeal challenging the judgment and orders dated 28.8.2010 and 29.6.2010 of conviction and sentence under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2010.
(2.) Appellants have assailed the impugned judgment from various angles. In order to bring home the charge of common intention under Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.), the prosecution has to establish by evidence whether direct or circumstantial, that there was a plan or a meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged, be it pre -arranged or at the spur of moment; but it must be necessarily be before the commission of the crime. Evidence is examination -in -chief and cross -examination both and not only the examination -in -chief. In a criminal trial, quality of testimony of vital witnesses is to be tested with great caution. Unexplained delay in lodging FIR is fatal for the prosecution in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial when two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused is acceptable. Referring to the said principles learned Advocate for the appellants have submitted before us that in the impugned judgment those golden principles were not followed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, during trial. He has pointed out portions of evidence of different witnesses to establish contradiction and exaggeration. He has also argued about some flaws on the part of investigating officer as fatal. He has claimed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants and for acquittal of the appellants.
(3.) According to the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the state respondent defective investigation, if any, and delay if any, in lodging FIR cannot be the only grounds for acquittal of accused in a criminal trial if prosecution case is otherwise proved by cogent evidence. Scanning the evidence on record, he does not admit any unreasonable inordinate delay in lodging FIR in the instant case. He has also claimed that taking into account the evidence of witnesses as a whole learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly considered the role played by accused persons in the alleged occurrence and has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. According to him, the role played by the appellants jointly in committing the crime complained of is sufficient to prove their motive, plan and prior meeting of minds. He has submitted for dismissal of this appeal and confirmation of the impugned judgment.;