Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Five appellants in all being convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and also under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bolpur in the district of Birbhum in connection with Sessions Trial No. 3 of January, 2003 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 123 of 2002 have preferred this appeal challenging the said conviction order.

2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 6th February, 2001 at about 10.30 p.m. when Sk. Sariat of village Lagosha under P.S. Labpur was returning home after closing video hall at Tarulia Hat, the present appellants in furtherance of their common intention encircled him and Sk. Basir and Manjur charged two bombs targetting him near the southern side of the road near Laghosa Primary School. Sk. Sariat being charged with one of the bombs on his back fell down with serious bleeding injuries and hearing his alarm Sk. Asgar Ali and other relatives came on the spot and soon thereafter Sk. Sariat was shifted to hospital where he was pronounced dead. Sk. Sariat on his way to hospital disclosed the name of the present appellants as his assailants.

3. Sk. Asgar Ali lodged the written complaint relating to the occurrence at Labpur P.S. and thereafter Labpur P.S. started the case against the present appellants.

4. In course of investigation, police collected post-mortem report of the victim and also arranged for recording statement of P.W.2 Maniruddin Sk. by a learned Judicial Magistrate and thereafter on completion of investigation and finding a strong prima facie case against all the five appellants, charge-sheet was submitted against all of them under Section 302/34 of the IPC and also under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, mainly relying on the deposition of P.W.2 Maniruddin Sk. and his statement recorded under Section 164(5) of the Cr. PC by the learned Magistrate, came to the conclusion that all the five appellants were present at the place of occurrence sharing a common intention to kill Sk. Sariat due to their previous enmity and at the place of occurrence out of the five appellants, Sk. Basir and Manjur threw bombs targetting Sk. Sariat and Sk. Sariat receiving bomb injury ultimately expired at the hasped. The learned Additional Sessions Judge apart from the statement of P.W.2 who claimed himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence also relied on the statement of P.W.1 Asgar Ali, P.W.3 Akema Bibi, P.W.5 Abdul Hakim, P.W.6 Sk. Najamuddin and P.W.7 Rajia Bibi who also deposed during trial that all of them came to know from the victim himself the name of the present appellants as his assailants. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, with reference to the FIR lodged by P.W. 1 and with reference to the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 and the medical opinion regarding the cause of death of the victim, found all the appellants guilty of the offence both under Section 302/34 of the IPC as well as under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act and all the appellants were accordingly convicted and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months each for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Sk. Basir and Manjur Ali were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act.

14. Mr. Sengupta submits that P.W.2 was an eye-witness of the prosecution and this P.W. during investigation gave a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164(5) of the Cr. PC and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of P.W.2 as an eye-witness.

15. Mr. Sengupta submits that the prosecution case that the victim suffered bomb injuries and died out of such injuries gets full corroboration both from the post-mortem report as well as from the statement of the doctor as P.W.13 and when from the deposition of P.W.2 as eye-witness and also from the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 to P.W.7 we get that all of them came to learn name of the appellants directly from the victim himself, the learned Judge made no mistake either in fact or in law in convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC and under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act.