Jay Sengupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.10.1996 and sentence dated 10.10.1996 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 113/89 arising out of Sessions Case No. 40/89 thereby convicting the appellants under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another 2 months. It was directed that the fine, if realised, would be paid to the widow of the victim/deceased as compensation. By the said judgment, the accused Manpa Mahato was found not guilty under Section 396 of the Penal Code and was acquitted and all the accused were found not guilty of the offence under Sections 302, 149 of the Penal Code.
(2.) Out of the five appellants who had preferred the appeal, two appellants namely the appellant no. 1 Jatindra Nath Mahato and the appellant no. 3 Mohanlal Mahato passed away during pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the instant appeal stood abated in respect of the said two appellants by an order dated 04.09.18.
(3.) On 12.10.1987 at 00:30 hours on getting information from PW 17, PW 11 had been to the place of occurrence. At 02:15 hours PW 11 recorded the statement of PW 1 there and forwarded the same to the Police Station for treating the same as FIR. The same was recorded as an FIR at the Police Station on 12.10.1987 at 7:15 hours against six unknown accused under Sections 302, 380 and 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act. PW 1 alleged that on 11.10.1987 at about 16:30 hours, her father Manindranath Mahato went out of their house like on other days. He used to return late. PW 1 and her younger brother and sisters were studying at home. She heard the sound of breaking of door at about 20:30/20:45 hours and also heard conversations of men outside. She went out only to find that her father was surrounded by six persons, aged about 25-30 years, one of whom was wearing a 'chost' pant and a green coloured half vest. He had a gun in his hand. One person wore a 'dhoti' like 'lungi' and a white 'panjabee'. He was dark, of sound health and had a turban on his head. He had a dagger in his hand. One of them was of tender age and was slim and fair. His height was about 5 feet. He was wearing a pant and a Hawai shirt. He had a knife in his hand. They were speaking in the language of the informant as well as in Hindi. They were telling her father that they would finish him at the Chourda river, but they came to take his money. They were saying that the father was too proud, would get her daughter married in 'unchu piri' and would give motor cycle. They threatened that they would also murder his wife and his (special friend) Nagu Babu of Baghmundi. They also said that the victim was making her daughter study at Ayodhya More and just completed the study of his son from Orissa. Then they asked the whereabouts of the informant's mother. The victim told the informant not to disclose anything. The informant asked her the younger sister to give the keys. One accused followed her younger sister and returned after a short while. In the meantime one of the accused who was wearing a 'chost' pant and 'gangee' caught hold of the victim and took him to his parlour and shot him with the gun in his hand. While coming out the said accused dragged the informant by catching her hand and told that he would make the informant his wife. He also asked about her mother. The informant showed her aunt as her mother. Then the man said that she was not the informant's mother. The informant's mother was of fair complexion and had sufficient hair on her head. The accused searched for the informant's mother, but could not find her as she had gone out to see her elder son. The said accused dragged PW 1 out of the room, caught two of their hens and the informant made over to them some articles from a plastic box and also gave Rs. 400/-. After that they all left through the village fields. The informant suspected that the accused did not come for the purpose of committing dacoity because then they would have gutted the articles. The informant also alleged that during the last few months the son-in-law of the appellant Kanistha brought a boy for giving her in marriage with him. At that time the victim had said that they would not get her daughter married to anybody. He had given education to his daughter and would give a motor cycle to his would be son-in-law. About 2/3 days before Durga Puja, the wife of the appellant Kanistha Mahato had fever and the appellant Jatin Mahato came and said that the mother of Shyamal was a witch, she had eaten her and she should be killed. The informant's mother had asked to intimate the matter to the police but it was not so intimated. The informant suspected that these persons might have caused the murder of her father with the help of others. A list of articles allegedly looted by the appellants was furnished by the informant.;