Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dasai Kujur vs The State Of West Bengal on 20 November, 2019
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
PRESENT:
The Hon'ble Justice Mr. Rajarshi Bharadwaj
C.R.A. 860 of 2013
Dasai Kujur vs. The State of West Bengal
For the appellant : Mr. Aniket Mitra
For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain
Heard on : 8th November, 2019
Judgment on : 20th November, 2019
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. :
The instant appeal arises out of an order and judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipurduar, District, Jalpaiguri dated 23rd August 2013 of the Sessions case No. 351/08 and Sessions Trial No. 1(5) 09, convicting the appellant under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months more, and acquitting the appellant for charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The instant prosecution case in brief is as follows:
On 21st January, 1992, Alokechan Barman lodged an F.I.R and written statement stating that Haridas Roy whom he brought up, along with Dhaneswar went to cock-fighting market riding on a cycle with a cock at Tashati Tea Garden on 19th January, 1992 around 12 o'clock at noon but Haridas did not return. On asking Dhaneswar and Dasai they confessed that in the late evening of last Sunday Haridas was killed and beheaded collectively by them, Shankar Oraon and another aborigine because there was an illicit relation between Haridas and the mother of Dhaneswar. After killing him, they buried his body under the area of Birpara Tea Garden to conceal all the evidences and the cycle of the deceased was taken by another accused, Shankar. On the basis of the written complaint and F.I.R, the accused persons were charged under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Learned Counsel Mr. Aniket Mitra submits that the Learned Judge has overlooked many material discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses and as a result, it appeared to be matter of prejudice to the appellant and so many legal points were not looked into with due importance. He also adds that the prosecution has failed to produce consistent evidences to establish the case. Thus, he pleaded that this appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of the Learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipurduar.
Mrs. Faria Hossain, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the evidences produced before the learned Court are proper and cogent and the judgment passed by the learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipurduar to be upheld.
I have heard learned advocates for the parties and considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence on record.
P.W.1, Alokchan Barman, testified that Dhaneswar Ray came to his house to take Haridas for cock-fighting at hat by his new cycle in a Sunday evening. Haridas did not return even on the next day. After interrogating Dhaneswar Ray he confessed that he and one Dasai Kujur with Shankar killed Haridas collectively and buried the dead body in the Birpara Tea Garden. The accused persons were handed over to the Police. The dead body was recovered afterwards.
P.W. 2, Anil Karju, deposed that he went with the Police and the accused persons by the Police vehicle to Birpara Tea Garden. There the accused persons identified the spot where the dead body was buried and unearthed the dead body of the deceased. He also added that police recorded the statement of the accused persons in the presence of him.
P.W. 3, Narayan Munda, deposed that he saw the deceased with Dhaneswar and Dasai at the bazar where they went to see cock- fighting.
P.W. 4, Suresh Barman, testified that on one Sunday the victim along with Dhaneswar went to Tasa Tea Garden hat for cock-fighting but Haridas did not return from that place. On the next morning they asked Dhaneswar about Haridas and then Dhaneswar confessed that he with the help of Dasai and another person killed Haridas. After that, the deponent and other villagers caught Dasai and handed over them to Police.
P.W. 5, Kali Kanta Barman, deposed that after the dead body was recovered, it was brought to Police Station first then on the next day it was sent to hospital for post mortem examination.
P.W. 6, Kalidas Ray, stated that on the fateful day Dhaneswar Ray and Dasai Kujur had taken Haridas to see cock-fighting. On that very day Dhaneswar and Dasai returned home but Haridas did not. Besides the villagers, Dhaneswar again confessed his guilt before the police at Police Station.
P.W. 8, Manoranjan Barman, deposed that on 19th January, 1992, Dhaneswar Barman and Dasai Kujur took Haridas Ray along with them to Tasa tea-garden. Haridas did not come back to his home. Then Dhaneswar was interrogated about Haridas and he confessed that he, Dasai Kujur, Sankar Oraon and another tribal person murdered Haridas and Dasai Kujur chopped Haridas with a bhojali.
P.W. 10, Dilip Kr. Roy, the then officer-in-charge of Birpara Police Station, deposed that he took up the investigation and went to the spot, took statement of the witnesses and seized all the articles (which were marked Exhibit 3/3, 7, 8 and 9) from the witnesses and the accused persons and arrested the accused persons.
From the evidence on record, it is clear that some witnesses saw the deceased to go to the Tasa Tea Garden market for cock-fighting with Dhaneswar Barman. Dhaneswar returned home at late night but the victim did not. There was extra-judicial confession made by Dhaneswar that he and 3 other persons jointly killed the deceased for having illicit relationship with Dhaneswar's mother. But as there is no clear evidence from any of the depositions, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld.
Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Aniket Mitra as amicus curiae in disposing the appeal.
Copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent down to the trial court at once for the necessary compliance.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)