IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi CRA (DB) 88 of 2024 with IA No.: CRAN 1 of 2024 Rejaul Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal With C.R.A 272 of 2015 Usharul Sk Vs. State of West Bengal With C.R.R. 1941 of 2022 Rejaul Sk @ Rajaul Sk Vs. The State of West Bengal For the Appellant and petitioner in C.R.A. (DB) 88 of 2024 and C.R.R. 1941 of 2022 : Mr. Arnab Chatterjee Mr. Avik Ghosh Ms. Poulami Bose Ms. Dhanashree Biswas For the appellant in C.R.A. (DB) 272 of 2015 : Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee Ms. Sananda Bhattacharyya 2 2 Ms. Kakan Das For the State in C.R.A. (DB) 88 of 2024 : Ms. Sreyashi Biswas Ms. Atulya Sinha For the State in C.R.A. (DB) 272 of 2015 : Ms. Rituparna De Ghosh Mr. Sharequl Haque Heard & Judgment on : June 18, 2025 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.:- 1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same police case. The two appellants were convicted by separate judgments. Since one was absconding at the time of trial. There is a criminal revision also relating to the police case. The criminal revisional application is disposed of since the trial concluded. 2. By the two separate judgments of conviction and order of sentence, the learned Trial Judge found the two appellants before us to be guilty of offence committed under Section 304, Part II of the IPC, 1860 and sentenced both of them for imprisonment of 10 years. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the learned advocate appearing for appellant that Rejaul Sk has served maximum part of his sentence imposed upon him. It has also been submitted that the evidence examined on behalf of the prosecution have not been able to substantiate the charges leveled against the convicts sufficiently 3 3 and as such the learned advocate for the appellants submit that the convicts should be acquitted. 4. On July 18, 1988, one Sherajul Islam lodged a written complaint with the Bhagwangola Police Station stating inter alia that on July 18, 1988 at about 11.00 a.m., there was a dispute between him and the accused persons on the point of entry of goats into a land. On their altercations, local villagers intervened and there was a shalisi on this issue. It was also submitted that at the time when the discussions were going on, one Sinarul, Humayun, Usharul, Rejaul Sk and Ors. assaulted Shovan Sk with sharp cutting weapons like bhojali, pasli etc. Sinarul Sk gave a violent blow on the left side of the victim due to which he suffered severe bleeding injuries. Thereafter accused persons fled away. 5. On the basis of such written complaint, Bhagwangola Police Station Case No. 5 dated July 18, 1988 under Section 392/34 of the IPC was started against four FIR named accused persons. 6. The police started investigation and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet. The offence being exclusively travelled by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Court of Sessions. Accordingly, on the basis of the materials in the case diary, charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC was framed. The accused persons pleaded not guilty of charges and claimed to be tried. 4 4 7. In order to prove his case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all. 8. P.W. 1 stated in his deposition that he knew the victim who was murdered on July 8, 1988. He further stated that there was a dispute due to the entry of goat into jute fields belonging to Sk. Humayun. Following such issue, there were altercations between the parties. 9. P.W. 2 and others arrived at the place of occurrence and tried to solve the disputes. During such talks of compromise, Sinarul and Rejaul attacked the victim with heso and pasli. Thereafter all the accused person assaulted the victim. P.W. 2 identified the appellants in Court. He also signed on the inquest report conducted over the dead body of the victim at the spot. P.W. 2 solely lodged the written complaint which he proved. 10. A co-villager deposed as P.W. 2. He has corroborated the statement of P.W. 1. He also testified that the victim was assaulted by the accused persons following the dispute over the entry of some goats into the jute fields. He has given the details of the injuries inflicted by the accused persons upon the victim. P.W. 2 also happens to be witness to the inquest. 11. The Autopsy Surgeon was examined as P.W. 3. He stated that on July 18, 1988, he conducted post mortem over the dead body of the victim which was brought and identified by a police personnel in connection with Bhagwangola Police Station Case No. 5 dated 5 5 July 18, 1988. In his deposition, P.W. 3 has described the details of the injuries found on the person of the victim and also opined that the injuries were anti mortem in nature. According to the opinion of P.W. 3, the death was caused due to shock, haemorrhage. 12. The wife of the victim deposed as P.W. 4. From the purporting of deposition of P.W. 4, it transpires that she was not present at the time of occurrence. She was informed about the incident by one Basir. Hearing the news, she arrived at the place of occurrence and found bleeding injury on the right side of the shoulder of her husband. She also stated that her husband died at the spot. She identified the appellants in Court. 13. P.W. 5 also stated in his deposition that there were disputes with regard to damaging of jute crop by goats belonging to Nesta. At that time, the appellants and others attacked the victim at about 11.00 a.m. The victim sustained bleeding injury and fell down. P.W. 5 identified the appellants in Court. 14. Another co-villager deposed as P.W. 6. He has corroborated the statement of P.W. 1 as well as P.W. 5. He further stated that there were altercations between the appellants and the victim over destruction of jute crop by goats. 15. In his deposition, P.W.7 stated that, he knew the victim as his co-villager. He further stated that, the victim was murdered sometime 12 years ago. 6 6 He was present when inquest was conducted on the dead body of the victim. He proved his signature on the inquest report. 16. Investigating Officer of the case deposed as P.W.8. He stated that, he took up the investigation of the case and visited the place of occurrence, examined the available witnesses, sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination. He also seized certain articles under seizure list which proved at the trial. He described the way the investigation of the case proceeded. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the four FIR named accused persons. 17. Upon conclusion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the appellants pleaded innocence being not connected with the incident in any way, however, was declined to adduce any defence witness. 18. As noted above, it is the case of the prosecution that there were disputes between the victim and the appellants are alleged to have assaulted the victim with deadly weapons causing bleeding injuries which ultimately resulted in death of the victim. 7 7 19. The Medical Officer was examined as P.W.3. In his deposition, he has described the nature of injuries from the person of the dead body of the victim which are set out hereunder:- “1. Deep sharp cut over right shoulder with margin echimosis about 3” long and 1” deep and 1” wide. It also involves head on humourous. 2. A deep sharp cut wound placed transversely over the middle of back about 8” long and 3” deep and 3” wide. Margin retracted. The cut involves lower lob of both lungs and liver on the right side. 3. A deep penetrating wound with area of echimosis and laceration over front of left ear about 2” x 4” deep. This injury is associated with division of the mandible and reached upto the base of scalp. Right lung injury—injury on lower lob about 2”. Margin echimosis. Left lung—injury at lower lob about 1½” long.” He further opined on the basis of such Post Mortem Report that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the cause of death noted by P.W.3 was due to shock and haemorrhage. 20. In consideration of the case made by the prosecution together with the Post Mortem Report and the deposition of P.W.2, it is quite evident that, the victim Abdus Sovan suffered unnatural death. 8 8 21. According to the case made out by the prosecution, it was the appellants who were responsible for causing the injuries upon the victim which ultimately resulted in his death. 22. Several witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have described the nature of injuries inflicted specifically by each of the appellants. Nevertheless, it is evident from the evidence lead at the trial that, the disputes between the victim and the appellants arose on the point of entry of crop belonging to the victim into the jute field of the appellants. There were altercations between the parties over the issue and in course of such altercation, the appellants are said to have assaulted the victim. Nothing has been produced on behalf of the prosecution that there were previous enmity between the appellants and the victim. In consideration of the aforesaid facts evident from the materials on record and in obedience to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 259 (Shahid Ali versus State of Uttar Pradesh) where it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:- “17. In this context, keeping in view the totality of circumstances of the case i.e., specially the fact that (i) there was no previous enmity between the Deceased; (ii) no intention may be attributed to the Appellant as may be culled out from the record to cause death of the Deceased; and (iii) position of law enunciated by this Court in Kunwar Pal Singh (Supra) and subsequently, followed in Bhagwan 9 9 Singh (Supra), we find that the Appellant is guilty of commission of ‘culpable homicide’ within the meaning of Section 299 IPC i.e., punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.” 23. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case as transpiring from the evidence on record and in view of ratio laid down in the case of Shahid Ali (Supra) we uphold the conviction and modify the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) 24. I. agree. (Debangsu Basak, J.) SD/CHC