Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 30th September/1st October, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Sessions Case No.9 of 1989 and Sessions Trial No.6 of 1994 convicting the appellant No.1 Dharmaraj Singh for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months and convicting the appellant no.2, Krishna Mohan Singh for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer imprisonment for 15 days more.
(2.) Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is that on 22.11.1987 at about 5.45 P.M. while the victim Rajendra Singh was milking his buffalo, the appellants along with Sahendra Singh and Debnandan Singh attacked him with iron rod, crowbar etc. in order to kill the victim. The victim started shouting for help. On hearing his shouts, people from the neighbourhood assembled. He was taken to Bidhannagar Hospital and admitted for 18 days. It is further alleged that he had been assaulted as he had asked for return of the money which he had advanced for the marriage of Debnandan Singh's daughter. On the basis of the written complaint of the injured Rajendra Singh, Durgapur Police Station Case No.16 dated 22.11.1987 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and one Sahendra Singh. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and Sahendra Singh. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the Sessions Judge by the impugned judgement and order dated 30th September/1st October, 1994 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. However, by the self-same judgement and order, Sahendra Singh was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Nobody appears for the appellants. Mrs. Hossain, learned Advocate is requested to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae.
(3.) Mrs. Hossain argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory to one another. The evidence of the victim, P.W.4, is contrary to the First Information Report and the other eye-witnesses do not admit the presence of each other at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report and that there is no evidence on record that the appellant no.1, Dharmaraj Singh intended to cause death of the victim. She accordingly prayed for acquittal of the appellants.;