SHIVAKANT PRASAD,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 31.07.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in Sessions Case No. 122 of 1989 (Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1991) convicting the accused appellant no. 1 under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively to run simultaneously and convicting the accused appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.
(2.) The brief fact leading to this appeal is that on 22.06.1984 at about 6.30 P.M. Amar Mondal son of Bibhuti Bhusan Mondal inhabitant of Dakshin Roypur adjacent to Patiram BSF Camp took loan for a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - from Gopal Sarkar son of Jyotirmoy Sarkar and nephew of the complainant of Patiram for the purpose of business of coconut. Gopal went to the house of Amar for realisation of that money but he did not return home. A missing diary was lodged in the morning of 24.6.1984 at Balurghat police station. It was the impression of the complainant that since Gopal went to the house of Amar Mondal, Gopal was murdered by the anti socials with the help of Amar Mondal. On 24.6.1984 at about 2.30 P.M. the complainant came to know that a dead body was floating at a distance of one K.M. from Chakkashi ghat of river Atreyee. The complainant went to that ghat and indentified the dead body to be that of Gopal Sarkar and he found several injuries on the head, shoulder and on different parts of the body caused by sharp cutting weapon. Due to bad weather, the dead body could not be brought out on that day to the P.S. On 25.6.1984 a specific complaint was lodged with the P.S. by the complainant. It is also stated therein that at the time of leaving the house Gopal had a wrist watch and a Norton cycle along with him worth valuation of Rs. 1,000/ -.
(3.) On the basis of written complaint, Balurghat P.S. Case No. 30 dated 25.6.1984 under Sections 302/201/379/411 IPC was started. On completion of the investigation, I.O. submitted Charge -sheet against the accused persons under Sections 302/201/379/411 IPC. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, charges under Sections 302/379 of the IPC was framed against the accused Amar Mondal and separate charge under Section 201 was framed against accused Amar Mondal, Bibhuti Bhusan Mondal, Kamal Pahan and Sudev Pahan who abjured the guilt and claimed a trial. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 25 (Twenty five) witnesses and also adduced in evidence documents viz. (i) written complaint of P.W. -1 Ext. -1; (ii) seizure list Ext. -2/1 in respect of Ramdao weapon of offence (Mat. Ext. -I) with signature of P.W. -9 as Ext. -2 on seizure list; (iii) seizure list Ext. -3/1 in respect of Norton black colour (used) (Mat. Ext. -II) with signatures of P.W. - 11 and P.W. -12 as Ext. -3 and Ext. -5 respectively on seizure list; (iv) seizure list Ext. -4/1 in respect of one pair black coloured used leather sandle (Mat. Ext. -III) with signatures of P.W. -11 and P.W. - 12 as Ext. -4 and Ext. -6 respectively on seizure list; (v) seizure list Ext. -7/1 in respect of control earth bearing signature of P.W. -12 as Ext. -7 on the seizure list; (vi) missing diary G.D. Entry No. 1068 dated 24.06.1984 Ext. -9; (vii) seizure list Ext. -10 in respect of one black colour thread (kar), one copper made amulet with black colour thread around the neck and copper ring with signatures of P.W. -17 and P.W. -22 as Ext. -8 and Ext. -12 respectively on the seizure list; (viii) FSL report Ext. -11; (ix) formal FIR Ext. -13; (x) rough sketch map of place of detection of dead body with explanatory index Ext. -14 and (xi) sketch map of P.O. with explanatory index Ext. -15. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to which each of them declined to adduce any defence evidence. The defence case is one of denial of charges which emerges from the trend of cross -examination of prosecution witnesses.;