Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was evident from the evidence of P.W.1, that he was not the witness to the occurrence and his claim of involvement of the appellants in the murder of his father was based on assumption allegedly on account of previous threat to life of his father. But while lodging the complaint he made allegations only against Dilip Roy @ Kalu, Sanjit Roy, Jharu Roy and Kamal Hossain alleging that they used to intimidate his father to murder him and that on the relevant date 05 minutes prior to departure of his father they set out towards the village by cycle and incident took place, so it was his belief that they have murdered his father with the assistance of others. With regard to the alleged bone of contention in between the Pintu and Madhabi with the victim surrounding the alleged gift, P.W.1 on being challenged during cross- examination could not say when the reported gift deed was executed by the Pintu's father nor any documents was produced to show that Pintu had filed any case against his father over the same. With regard to the reported termination of service of Madhabi from the school no document was produced to show that Madhabi was at all a teacher at Shisu Shiksa Kendra nor he could say where that Shisu Shiksa Kendra was situated. He also could not say the date, month or year when Pintu, Madhabi and others threatened to murder his father. He even admitted that during investigation he did not state to the IO nor he mentioned in the FIR that Madhabi and Pintu started giving out threats that they would murder his father nor he made any complaint to the P.S. or to the SDPO or SP concerned. According to his own admission he had prior acquaintance with appellants Malek, Moktar, Sawkat and Miaraj as they used to visit Pintu's house for which he had some suspicion against them. He admitted that his father was a political person and he had both enemies and friends and that his father was an accused in the Raghu's murder case and was convicted. Interestingly, during investigation he did not state to the I.O. that his father was a Secretary of Shisu Shiksa Kendra and Madhabi used to teach children at Shisu Shiksa Kendra and when his father became Secretary at Shisu Shiksa Kendra he dismissed Madhabi from that school. He also did not state to the I.O. that Pintu, Madhabi and others threatened to murder his father if he raised construction over 5 decimals of land. He also did not state to the I.O. that Malek, Miraj, Provat, Mukhtar, Rejaul and others used to stay in Pintu's house and threatened his father. P.W.3 though stated about termination of Madhabi from Shisu Shiksa Kendra by the deceased and her threat for the same but during cross-examination he went on to say that Government dismissed Madhabi as she was not of required age. On being challenged he could not say the year Madhabi was dismissed and/or the date, month or the year when she started threatening the victim. Interestingly, he went one step further and claimed that once police apprehended Pintu in connection with a kidnapping case for which he started giving out threat to the victim to murder him, though not claimed by the complainant, but on being challenged he could not say the date, month or year of such arrest of Pintu and/or the alleged threat. He even did not say all these to the I.O. during investigation. He also did not whisper anything with regard to any such dispute and/or litigation between the victim and Pintu over any gift of land by the father of Pintu for which victim was threatened for his life nor about any such threat by Mairaj, Swakat, Malek, Moktar, Rejaul, Pralay @ Puchke and others nor about any ill feeling and threat by Kalu and his brothers Sanjit and Jharu over reported arrest of Kalu in connection with murder case of Buddo of Nowda as claimed by P.W1. According to his own admission he is the cousin brother of the victim by distant relation and once he along with the victim and other villagers looted the house of Dulal Mondal. P.W.5,son of the victim, while supporting the claim of his brother, P.W.1, with regard to the grudge of Pintu and Madhabi against their father over gift of land and for dismissal of Madhabi from the school by his father and that of Kalu and his brothers over arrest of Kalu in the murder case of one Budo went one step farther and claimed that one/two days prior to the incident there was whispering that Pintu and Madhabi gave R. 50,000/- to Malek, Miaraj, Sawkat, Muktar, Kamal, Billal, Rulamin, Reja Bokra and Puchke to murder his father but surprisingly he did not state this to the I.O. during investigation or to the police officer during the inquest held in his presence nor stated from whom he heard this. According to P.W.6, Madhabi Roy used to give out threats that they would murder Subhas Biswas as there was some dispute between them over ICDS school but did not whisper regarding any gift or dismissal of Madhabi from school service. He even claimed that he stated to the I.O. that two days prior to the incident there was a meeting in the house of Pintu where a monetary transaction of Rs. 50,000/- took place for murdering Subhas but admitted that he was not present in that meeting nor could say how he came to known that there was a meeting in the house of Pintu Roy where a monetary transaction of Rs. 50,000/- took place for murdering Subhas Biswas. He even did not state all these to the I.O. during investigation. Furthermore, he did not support the allegation of the complainant and his brother with regard to the reported threat by Mairaj, Swakat, Malek, Moktar, Rejaul, Pralay @ Puchke and others nor about any ill feeling and threat by Kalu and his brothers Sanjit and Jharu over reported arrest of Kalu in connection with murder case of Buddo of Nowda as claimed by P.W1. P.W.8 though stated about the dispute between the Pintu and Madhabi with victim over gift of land and reported termination of service of Madhabi but did not support the claim of the complainant with regard to the reported threat by other appellants. He also could not say the name of the school in question. Admittedly no such paper in connection with service and/or termination from service of Madhabi from school was seized and produced by the I.O. nor any document with regard to any litigation between victim and Pintu over the gift in question. Even the date,month or year with regard to the reported termination of service of Madhabi from school and/or the reported threat of life of the victim was brought on record to show the proximity with the murder. The allegation of the prosecution with regard to the threat of life of the victim by Mairaj, Swakat, Malek, Moktar, Rejaul, Pralay @ Puchke and others and/or harbouring of ill feeling towards the victim and threat to his life by Kalu and his brothers Sanjit and Jharu for the reported role of the victim towards arrest of Kalu also fell flat in view of the evidences discussed herein above. In the instant case thus, we find that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not been fully established. This being the position, we have no option but to hold that the impugned judgement cannot be sustained in law because prosecution had failed to prove this circumstances also.