Form No. J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present : The Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha And The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury CRA 614 of 2019 Jiam Mondal @ Jiyam Versus The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Senior Advocate Mr. Diptangshu Basu For the State : Mr. Sagar Saha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay Heard on : 7th July 2026 Judgment on : 7th July 2026 Rajasekhar Mantha, J.: 1. The subject appeal is directed against judgment and/or order of conviction dated 30th August, 2019 and 31st August, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No.35 (12) 2012 arising out of Sessions Serial Case No.11 of 2010. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo rigorous 2 imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 324 of the I.P.C. THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. On 30th June, 2009 at a football field at Kaladanga, Ghoshpara, Murshidabad the appellant was seen by P.W.-1 Ajabul Sk., P.W.-7 Amjad Sk. and P.W.-8 Sariful Sk. assaulting the deceased Ruhul Amin Sk. with a long sharp cutting instrument called ‘Pashli’. The said Pashli is used for agricultural purposes. 3. The allegation of the appellant was that the victim in a drunken condition was creating a nuisance in the field. The appellant normally works in Kerala and come to the said village from time to time. He admittedly did not have good relations with the victim or his family. 4. Around 3 p.m. on 30th June, 2009, the P.W.-1 Ajabul Sk., the de facto complainant, reached the spot, i.e. near a goalpost of the football filed on the side of a Madrasah, and the appellant was seen holding a bloodstain Pashli. He was on the verge of inflicting further assault on the victim and was resisted by P.W.-7 Amjad Sk. and P.W.-8 Sariful Sk. One Saidul Sk. was also present trying to resist the assault. When P.W.- 7 Amjad Sk. and P.W.-8 Sariful Sk. tried to use bamboo stick to resist the appellant, they were also assaulted. P.W.-7 Amjad Sk. sustained injury on his right arm. 5. Hearing the hue and cry of the aforesaid persons, several local persons assembled thereat. The appellant fled the scene. The victim was taken to Islampur PHC first along with P.W.-7 Amjad Sk. and P.W.-8 3 Sariful Sk. The victim is stated to have told P.W.-7 Amjad Sk. and P.W.- 1 Ajabul Sk. that the appellant assaulted him. There is, however, no other record of such declaration of the victim. 6. On a formal complaint being lodged by P.W.-1 Ajabul Sk. with the Doulatabad Police Station, Murshidabad, FIR No.76 of 2009 dated 30th June, 2009 was registered under Sections 302, 326 and 307 of the IPC. 7. The statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded of P.W.-1 Ajabul Sk. and P.W.-8 Sariful Sk. Investigation was completed. The appellant was arrested. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 307 and 302 of the I.P.C. on 17th December, 2012. THE TRIAL AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD: 8. P.W.-1 Ajabul Sk. was the brother of the victim. He confirmed his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He also detailed the entire prosecution case as narrated hereinabove in his evidence. He was not an eyewitness to the first assault by the appellant on the victim. He, however, witnessed the subsequent assaults by the appellant on the victim as well as on P.W.-7 Amjad Sk. and P.W.-8 Sariful Sk. His evidence could not be shaken in cross-examination. 9. P.W.-2 was Arfa Bibi and P.W.-3 was Nazufa Bibi. Their evidence, however, indicates that they had not witnessed the incident. None of the eyewitnesses namely P.W.-1 Ajabul Sk., P.W.-7 Amjad Sk. and P.W.-8 Sariful Sk. had mentioned the presence of P.W.-2 Arfa Bibi and P.W.-3 Nazufa Bibi at the place of occurrence. 4 10. P.W.-4 Sainul Islam was a rickshaw puller, who took the victim to the Islampur PHC. P.W.-5 was Bablu Sk. and P.W.-6 was Golam Murtaza Sk. They were seizure witnesses to the Pashli and the bloodstained earth. They identified the weapon in Court. 11. P.W.-7 was Amjad Sk. He was an injured eyewitness to the incident. He was returning from field to his residence when he saw the appellant carrying a Pashli from the direction of the house of Manjur Mondal (not examined). He also saw the victim going towards the field for cultivation. He deposed that he saw the appellant strike a blow with the ‘pashli’ on the left shoulder of the victim who immediately fell down on the football ground and lost his sense. When he enquired of the appellant as to why he assaulted the victim, the appellant also assaulted PW-7, Amjad Sk., on the right arm joint with the ‘pashli’. He fell down bleeding. There was another person called ‘Saidul Islam’ (not examined) who tried to resist the appellant with a bamboo was also assaulted by the appellant. The said Saidul Islam fell down on the ground. The evidence of PW-7 could not be shaken in cross-examination. 12. PW-8 was Sariful Sk. He was standing on the Colony ‘Para’ Road next to the football ground where the incident occurred. He deposed that the incident occurred towards the western side of the goalpost of the said football ground. He saw the appellant strike a blow with a ‘pashli’ on the victim. He also deposed that the appellant assaulted one Saidul Sk. and PW-7, Amjad Sk. both of them were hit and were fell down and sustained injuries. Saidul Sk. was injured on his right wrist and Amjad 5 Sk. was injured on his right chest below his shoulder. He could not see the blood injury on the body from the distance where he was standing. He found bleeding injury on the body of the victim while they were being loaded in a trolley van. He further deposed that 20/30 persons of the village who came to know of the incident, came to the spot. The appellant ran away towards a jute filed. The victims were taken to Islampur P.H.C. where the victim is stated to have told the persons present that the appellant chopped him on the shoulder. The victim Ruhul Amin was declared dead by the doctor at the Islampur P.H.C. PW-8 had a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. before a Magistrate and the same was exhibited. He was also witness to the inquest report. His evidence could not be shaken in cross-examination. 13. PW-9 was Doctor Ajit Kumar Dalai. He performed the postmortem on the body of the victim. He identified all the injuries by cutting bones situated in the nape of the neck- cutting muscles, vessels, vertebral column, spinal cord, aesophagus and wind pipe. The head of the victim almost separated from the body. 14. PW-10 was Doctor Md. Nafaur Rahaman. He was the doctor of Murshidabad District Medical College who examined Saidul Sk. and PW- 7, Amjad Sk. Their bedhead tickets and injury reports were proved and exhibited in Court. 15. PW-11, S.I. Biplab Gangopadhyay and PW-12, Banamali Biswas were the officers of the Doulatabad Police Station. 6 16. PW-13, Ex-SI Swapan Chandra Pal was the Investigating Officer who has detailed the entire process of investigation. 17. Based on the evidence on record, the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., material exhibits, injury reports and bedhead tickets of the victim, the Trial Court convicted the appellant as already indicated hereinabove, this Court has carefully examined the evidence on record. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant argues firstly that one of the key witnesses to the incident, namely, an injured eyewitness Saidul Sk. was not examined by the prosecution. His evidence would have made the case of the prosecution rock solid. In the absence of the examination of the said person. It is submitted that the prosecution case could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that one Manjur Sk. who allegedly supplied the ‘pashli’ to the appellant was not examined. It is also argued that several persons, namely, local villagers are stated to have assembled and heard the victim informed PW-1, PW-7 and PW-8 that he was assaulted by the appellant. None of such persons are examined. 19. This Court notes that the evidence of PW-1, PW-7 and PW-8, the seizure list of the ‘pashli’, an identification thereof by PW-5 and PW-6 in the Trial has established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant in course of examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. has not offered any particular alibi that he was not present at the time and place of occurrence. 7 20. The aforesaid read with the medical report and the likelihood of the ‘pashli’ causing the injuries of the victim and particularly, the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses do not leave any doubt in the mind of this Court of the participation of the appellant in the crime in question. The evidence read as a whole even without the evidence of Saidul Sk. and Manjur Sk. clearly and beyond all reasonable doubt, established that the appellant was responsible for the death of the victim Ruhul Amin and the injuries on P.W.-7 Amjad Sk. and P.W.-8 Sariful Sk. 21. In the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove and the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 22. Hence, CRA 614 of 2019 fails and is hereby dismissed. 23. In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed. 24. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court’s Record be forthwith sent down to the trial Court. 25. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) I agree. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)