Kalidas Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandi, Murshidabad in Sessions Serial No. 45 of 1998 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 2 of June, 2000 sentencing thereby the appellants to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge also convicted and sentenced the appellant Fulan Seikh to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a further fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 9B(1)(b) of the Explosive Act with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.
(2.) One Dibyendu Kumar Saha lodged complaint with the O.C. Kandi P.S. on 25.6.1993 alleging that at about 7.30 a.m. his elder brother Ardhendu Kumar Saha of Ganthla went to market near Ganthla Bus Stand for shopping. He was accompanied by his nephew Basudeb Saha of Ganthla. While they were buying fish at the market, suddenly Md. Fulan Seikh threw a bomb on the back of Ardhendu from a distance of about 3 -4 ft. from behind. Being injured, Ardhendu fell down on the ground and he was surrounded by Md. Kaimuddin Seikh, Kalam Seikh, Gora Seikh, Sher Ali Seikh, Kala Seikh and Md. Abu Sayeed Seikh. Accused Sher Ali Seikh and Kala Seikh held the injured forcibly on the ground and at that time Fulan Seikh and Kaimuddin Seikh guarded them holding 'shotter' in their hands. After throwing the bomb, Fulan Seikh drew out the 'shotter' from his waist. Accused Gora Seikh with a big dagger struck Ardhendu in the throat. The incident was seen by Basudeb Saha, Soumendu Saha and Nikhil Pal. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Kandi P.S. Case No. 76 of 1993 dated 25.6.1993 was started and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted.
(3.) The learned Judge passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence holding that the cross -examination of the defence practically strengthened the material version of P.W. 2 and that P.W. 2 has been proved to be an eyewitness. The learned Judge further observed that the evidence of P.W. 2 has been well corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned Judge observed that Sec. 174 of the Cr.P.C. relates to the holding of inquest to ascertain the cause of death and the inquest report was not an evidence, but, can be used to test the veracity of the witness if he makes contradictory statement in regard to the inquest at the Trial. The learned Judge finally observed that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the charge against the accused persons by cogent, satisfactory and legal evidence beyond reasonable doubt.;