Monoj Soni and Others vs State

Arunabha Barua, J.—The instant appeals arise out of Sessions Trial No. 2 of July, 1988 in respect of Sessions Case No. 22 of 1988 which arose out of Burtolla P.S. Case No. 258 of 15.8.87. The Trial Judge was Seventh Bench of City Sessions Court. Calcutta. Five accused persons namely. (1) Ashok Das (2) Sankar Singh (3) Naresh Singh (4) Monoj Soni @ Laloo and (5) Dilip Das stood the trial. They were charged for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. By his judgment and Order dt. 12.12.90 the learned Judge. City Sessions Court found accused Ashok Das. Sankar Singh, Monoj Soni @ Laloo guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC and read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act for causing the murder of one Panchu Gopal Chatterjee of Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta. Of the said five accused persons the accused Naresh Singh and Dilip Das were acquitted of the charges u/s 302/34 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act but the learned Sessions Court held them guilty of offence u/s 504 IPC.

The learned Sessions Court was pleased lo release accused Naresh Singh and Dilip Das on probation of good conduct in exercise of his power u/s 360 Criminal Procedure Code read with the provisions of Offender''s Act. But the accused Sankar Singh accused Monoj Soni @ La loo and accused Ashok Das were ordered to suffer sentence for life for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC and no separate sentence was passed against them for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act

The said 3 convicts namely, Sankar Singh. Monoj Soni @ Laloo and Ashok Das having assailed the said judgment of the learned City Sessions Court, have preferred the appeals which we have taken up for decision.

Facts of the case:

Prosecution case briefly stated is this. "North Calcutta Ananda Mandir" was a club situated at Ramesh Dutta Street. Calcutta. The dub was associated with social works including celebrations of days of national importance including one on the Independence Day, that is 15th August Like previous years the Club was celebrating the Independence Day on 15.8.87. Panchu Gopal Chatterjee since deceased and who was the victim was standing at that time in front of premises No. 178/2, Ramesh Dutta Street which was opposite to the said club. The club was also set to organize a one-day rube(sic) ball tournament in that locality on that particular day. Now. what happened was that the accused persons, who were some youngmen of the locality: along with other persons also wanted a football match to be played by them at the sell-same Venue. The Secretary of the said club and some other persons tried to persuade the accused persons and others to allow the football match to be played by the club at the said place but their request was not heeded to by the accused persons and their associates. At about 6.30/7.00 a.m. the accused persons along with one Kesto Singh came to the said Ramesh Dutta Street and started abusing the said Panchu Gopal Chatterjee, who was a member of the said club and who used to reside in a house with his parents, brothers and sisters at the said Ramesh Dutta Street itself. Some of the accused persons at that time caught hold of the said Panchu Gopal Chatterjee (deceased) and a scuffle ensued. Panchu Gopal Chatterjee somehow managed get him released and at that time his elder brother P.W. Tarak, P.W., Sankar rushed to the rescue of Panchu Gopal and on seeing them the said accused persons along with Kesto Singh had left the place. About one and a half hour later, that is about 8.00 a.m., the said Panchu Gopal was witnessing the Flag Hoisting Ceremony of the said club. At that time the said accused persons along with Kesto Singh again emerged on the scene at the said Ramesh Dutta Street. The accused persons started abusing Panchu Gopal (deceased) in filthy language. Accused Monoj Soni @ Laloo and accused Sankar had bombs in their hands. Accused Ashok Das caught hold of Panchu Gopal, who then somehow managed to get himself free and started running towards a blind lane just by the side of the said premises No. 178/2, Ramesh Dutta Street. Then accused Sankar Singh hurled a bomb at Panchu Gopal which directly hit on his head and Panchu Gopal fell down sustaining heavy bleeding injuries. Then P.W. 7, who was the second elder brother of the victim Panchu rushed to save his brother and tried to persuade the accused persons not to hurt his brother any more. The accused persons did not listen. Then Ashok Das threw a bomb aiming at P.W. 7 but fortunately the bomb did not explode having got obstructed by the wearing (lungi) of P.W. 7. Immediately thereafter 4he accused Monoj Soni @ Laloo threw another bomb which again hit Panchu Gopal and some splinters of the bomb also struck P.W. 7 of his forehead, chest and penis. Thereafter being scared P.W. 7 started running towards the right direction of the blind lane and entered into premises No. 178/2, Ramesh Dutta Street as the entrance door of that house was found open. While P.W. 7 was thus trying to run away, accused Ashok Das and Sankar Singh started chasing him and accused Ashok threw a bomb which hit the door of that premises. Then, P.W. 8 Ram Dulal Chatterjee who was the father of the deceased Panchu on hearing the row and the explosion of the bomb came out to see what had happened. One witness told him that Panchu Gopal was attacked with bomb by Sankar and Laloo and Panchu was lying down with injuries. PW. 8. the father immediately rushed towards that blind lane and he found accused Sankar, Laloo and Ashok moving in front of the blind lane. P.W. 8 saw his son lying there in a pool of blood. He asked his son Panchu as to who had caused his injuries and in reply victim Panchu told him, that is his father, P.W. 8, that Sankar and Laloo had inflicted the injuries. Panchu the victim could not speak further. While P.W. 8 was engaged in lifting the injured head of his son Panchu from the road, accused Sankar threw another bomb aiming at PW. 8 which exploded with heavy sound and as a result of that P.W. 8 too sustained injury on his right knee. Immediately thereafter his young son Saumitra Chatterjee came there and took the injured Panchu Gopal on his shoulder and went to the Medical College Hospital then by a taxi with the injured. P.W. 8 was still sitting there and his eldest son Tarak Chattejee, P.W, Sankar Sarkar, the Secretary of the said Ananda Mandir Club came there and took P.W. 8 at the door of their house at premises No. 178/2 Ramesh Dutta Street and he was made to sit there. Thereafter the police came. The victim Panchu Gopal, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 all attended at the hospital. The victim Panchu Gopal expired the next day that is 16.8.87. After medical attention P.W.7 and P.W. 8 were released. Accused Ashok Das was caught red-handed by the local men and was handed to the police. P.W.23 who was attached to Jorasanko Police Station on hearing the news of explosion rushed to the place to inform the police control room. It was then communicated to Sergeant A. K. Sana who then informed the Burtolla Police Station and the requisite G. D. Entry was made there at about 09.10 a.m. When P.W. 27 (I.O. of the case) was leaving the Police Station, he found the statement of P.W. 7 being recorded as the First Information Report Police seized the blood-stained garments of P.Ws. 7 and 8, examined witnesses and recorded statement u/s 161 Criminal Procedure Code and also made inquest of the dead body in the hospital and post-mortem examination was also made as per requisition of the police and post-mortem report obtained: Police also seized some alleged remnants of the bomb from the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map and took the necessary photographs. Accused persons except Kesto Singh were arrested. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons u/s 302/ 34 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Charges were framed against the accused persons u/s 302/34 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons lo which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial began and prosecution examined in all 27 witnesses.

Defence is one of complete innocence of the accused persons. Defence examined one witness only.

According to the prosecution, the case is proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt by the evidence of the eye witnesses to the occurrence which was also supported by medical evidence and other circumstances of the case. The defence has found fault with the FIR and also sundry discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses including the medical evidence and has also found fault with the investigation of the case. The defence of the accused is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons and that they should be acquitted. According to the appellants the decision of the learned City Sessions Court finding conviction of the appellants u/s 302/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was based on erroneous appreciations of evidence and that they should also be acquitted and judgment and order of the learned City Sessions Court sentencing them to life imprisonment should be set aside.

The main arguments advanced by the defence in support of their contentions may be summed up as follows:

In the first place, the First Information Report (FIR), which appears to have been received and drawn at the Police Station at 12.45 hours on the date of incident that is 15.8.87. has been assailed as a product of sheer concoction and the same that the FIR Ext. 5, is alleged to have contained no: truth and deliberately made to falsely implicate the appellants in the commission of murder of deceased Panchu Gopal. According to the defence. it "has transpired in evidence ''that P.W. 7 Tarak visited the hospital along with his father, P.W. 8 at 10.00 a.m. and remained there even after 2.00 p.m. and they met no police at the hospital. No FIR could be -Recorded on the complaint; Ext. 5 any time-before P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 returned from the hospital, that is before 2.00p.m. It is absolutely false that on the ''complaint marked Ext. 5 the F.I.R, of the present case was recorded at 12.45 hours at the P.S. Ext. 5 was obviously recorded after P.W. 7 and his father P.W. 8 received treatment at the hospital. The original complaint, which P.W. 27, LO. of the case, found being written at the spot by F.W. 7 Tarak, which was the first information about the occurrence to the police and on the basis of which P.W. 27 commenced the investigation, has been deliberately withheld and suppressed by the prosecution and replaced by Ext. 5 since the case unfolded in the said complaint gave no support to the prosecution case made out "during the trial. Ext. 5 must have been recorded after 2.00 p.m. on 15.8.87. But from the admission of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 it has appeared that both of them before leaving for the hospital at 10.00 a.m. on 15.8.87 had sufficient opportunity to disclose the alleged incident which they claimed to have seen in their own eyes to the police. It was. therefore, submitted that non-disclosure of the alleged incident to the police by the P.Ws. 7 and 8 before they left hospital indicates that they were never the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident and that whatever they deposed during the trial are false and is the result of tutoring. It has further been argued by the defence that both P.W. 7Tarak, RW. 8 Ram Dujal claimed to have sustained bleeding injuries in the aforesaid incident and were treated at the Medical College and Hospital. But neither the doctor who treated them was examined during the trial nor. their injury report were accepted at the trial in court. It has been further argued that though P.W.7 had alleged that a bomb was hurled at him by accused, Ashok but the same did not explode but no unexploded bomb was seized from the P.O. by the police. Also PW. 8 Ram Dulal claimed to have received injury at the incident and was treated at the hospital but neither the injury report was accepted during the trial, nor the doctor examined. It has been further argued that P.W. 9 Kailash who had a tea-shop at the locality for 17/18 years failed to identify deceased Panchu in tell photograph Ext. VIII/A. He is not at all a reliable witness and in fact he was not at all an eye witness to the occurrence. Furthermore, a string of contradictions in the statements of witnesses at the trial and those made before the LO., P.W. 27 recorded u/s 161 Criminal Procedure Code have been sought to be highlighted to cloud the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It has also been argued that from the evidence of P.W. 7 it has appeared that large number of witnesses were available but the prosecution examined only partisan witnesses. As for the alleged common intention of the appellants in the commission of the crime, it is argued that it is the duty of the prosecution to show from the attending circumstances that all the accused persons had shared such common intention, that the evidence does not show that convict Ashok had played any role by way of utterance or conduct from which it can be inferred that he shared common intention and as such Ashok is entitled to acquittal and cannot be held responsible for the independent act of the other accused persons. In this connection reliance was placed on the decision reported in Ramashish Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar, . So far as other accused are concerned, it has not been established that they had any intention to kill Panehu. otherwise they would have hurled bomb on him on their arrival at the spot when Panehu was found there. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible u/s 302 I.P.C. It has further been argued that the conduct of the investigation is perfunctory and not at all impartial. The Investigating Officer, P.W. 27 admitted that he examined many persons of the locality but did not record their statements as they did not lend support to the prosecution case. According to the defence there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and the appellants deserve to be acquitted.

The prosecution has found no substance in the arguments placed by the defence. According to the prosecution the ocular version of eyewitnesses including the injured ones, supported by medical evidence together with the motive for murder and the dying declaration made by the deceased Panchu clearly bring home the case of the prosecution beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. The learned City Sessions Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the just and correct finding that the appellants were guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and rightly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. As for the first information report which was assailed by the defence the prosecution has to'' argue that it is the testimony of P.W. 7, the informant that he was at the hospital between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and had been to the hospital with his father. Now. P.W. 27 had deposed that when he had left the P.S. on the receipt of the message being recorded in the said G.D. being Ext. 10 at about 9.10 it was "observed that P.W. 7 was recording his statement at the P.S. which was later treated as the first information report. The defence in such case wanted to suggest that the F.I.R, could have been lodged only after 2.00 p.m. as till then he was in the hospital. What the defence had overlooked to consider was that the injured was taken to the hospital by P.W. 13. And as per the testimony of P.W. 7 he was away from the hospital till 10.00. No explanation has been sought by the defence of his whereabouts between 09.00 and 10.00. It was, therefore, possible for him to be at the P.S. then when the said report was being written. First Information Report only results in initiation of the investigation and could be used only against its maker. Once the evidence is laid before the court at a trial, the prosecution case is then for consideration in light of this evidence with regard to its trustworthiness and reliability tested on the scales of corroboration between ocular version and medical evacuee. In any case. even if Ext. 10 is treated to be the first information report, it did not weaken the prosecution case in any way or manner whatsoever. It is further argued by the prosecution that the first information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. The statute also does not provide that it must be by an eye-witness. It is also not a substantive piece of evidence and could be used to contradict and corroborate the maker only. Reference is made to the case of Apren Joseph vs. State of Kerala 1973 SCC (Cr) 195. Again referring to a decision of the two Supreme Court cases in Dharma Rama Bhagare vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 SCC (Cr) 421 & State of Gujarat vs. Anirudhsinh, 1997 SCC (Cr) 946 it is stated that the value of any First Information Report depends upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. It can by no means be utilised for contradicting or discrediting the other witnesses who had no desire to spare the real culprit and to falsely implicate the appellants. It could also not be thrown out on the mere ground that in the first information report an altogether different version was given. Further citing a decision in Raton Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1997 SCC (Cr) 525, it is stated that the first information report cannot be accepted to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened. nor to contain an exhaustive catalogue of the events which took place. It is a voluntary narrative of the informant without interrogation which usually goes into the statement. So any omission therein had to be considered along with other evidence. And Criminal Courts should not be fastidious with mere omissions in the First Information Report statements. The prosecution has also relied upon the dying declaration made to P.W. 8, the father of the deceased Panchu. According to the evidence of P.W.8 his son Panchu Gopal had told him the names of the assailants while. P.W. 8 lifted his head at the scene of occurrence having been injured by the bomb blast.'' The deceased was conscious at the time and was able to communicate and there was no suggestion by the defence that the statement made by the dying person Panchu Gopal was concocted or an after-thought or that the said statement by Panchu was a false one. There was also absolutely no suggestion of any enmity or falsely implicating the appellants of the offence or of any rivalry or motive behind it. Reference has been made to a couple of decisions of the Supreme Court in 2000 SCC (Cr) 935. Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and 2000 SCC (Cr) 1250. Sudhahar vs. State of Maharashtra to say that to attract the provision of Section 32 for the purpose of admissibility of the statement of a deceased, the prosecution was required to prove that the statement was made by the person, who is dead and that such statement had been made under any of the circumstances specified in sub-Sections (1) to (8) of the said Section. It did not require that it should have been made in imminent expectation of death. In a case where it was verbal, it was required to be proved by examining the person who heard the deceased making the statement. It has also been argued on behalf of the prosecution that so far as the medical evidence is concerned it is the evidence of P.W. 21. the autopsy surgeon that the deceased Panchu Gopal on examination, was found to suffer injuries from the explosion of bomb as well as other injuries. It was suggested by the defence that these other injuries were not explained as to how they were caused, which the doctor in his cross-examination had deposed that the margin of the lacerated injuries showed evidence of burning and there were multiple area of first degree burn and there is haemmorage spot over some area of the body- These findings were not inconsistent with the injuries that were produced by explosion of bomb as well as assaults. With regard to the alleged defective investigation it has been pointed out by the prosecution that in any case, a prosecution case could not be thrown over-board on the basis of an illegal or irregular investigation. With regard to prosecution witnesses who were relatives of the deceased victim it has been argued that simply because a witness happens to be a relation of the deceased, his evidence could not be discarded if his testimony was otherwise acceptable. Reliance is made on the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1992 SCC (Cr) 52. Then, where occurrence took place near the house of the prosecution witnesses and the witnesses examined were residing with the witness near whose house occurrence took place, the evidence would not be stigmatized as interested testimony because they happen to be near relations of the deceased and the prosecution case could not be rejected on such score. This was reported in Pattad Amarappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, . Then, reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Munshi Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2002 SCC (Cr) 175, which says that witness may be related but that does not mean and imply total rejection of the evidence: Interested they may be but in the event they are so, it is the predominant duty of the Court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of the evidence of these interested witnesses and if on such a scrutiny it is found that the evidence on record is otherwise trustworthy, question of rejection of the same on the ground of being interested witnesses would not arise. It is the totality of the evidence which matter and if the same creates a confidence of acceptability of such an evidence, the question of rejection of being ascribed as interested witnesses would not be justifiable.

Now, we have closely gone through the materials on record inclusive of the evidence in the case. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned City Sessions Court. Calcutta. We have also duly considered the arguments placed on behalf of the prosecution and defence.

This was one of a case of murder, pure and simple. The case is based on direct evidence of several eye witnesses. A motive can also be ascribed to the murder. This virtually makes the exercise on decision making somewhat easier.

The convict-appellants are Sankar Singh. Monoj Soni @ Laloo and Ashok Das. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment having been found guilty of the offences punishable u/s 302/34 I.P.C, and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act Their participation in the offence-quite grave in nature-propelled by a common intention is unmistakably borne out by the evidence on record. They have been found guilty of murdering one Panchu Gopal Chatterjee by bombs which they had illegally possessed.

There are as many as 8 (eight) eye-witnesses to the occurrence that took place at about 8.00 a.m. on the Independence Day of August (sic) 1987. The occurrence took place in a blind narrow lane between 178/ 2 and 177, Ramesh Dutta Street and also in the same street in front of premises No. 178/2. The time of the brutal murder was in broad day light. The persons, as many as eight of them, who eye-witnessed the occurrence were residents near the place of occurrence. Also, they were either close relatives of the deceased-victim Panchu Gopal Chatterjee or local shop-keepers. All the appellants namely. Sankar. Monoj and Ashok were youngmen of the locality and known to the eye-witnesses. So. there was evidently no mistake in their identity.

A motive coupled with the common intention to murder Panchu Gopal can also be ascribed to the animosity and bitterness that brewed up over holding a rubber-ball football tournament at a venue on the Independence Day that is the day of occurrence on 15.8.87. It is the prosecution case supported by oral evidence on record that as a part of the Independence Day celebration of Ananda Mandir Club at the said Ramesh Dutta Street, the club was scheduled to organize a rubber-ball football tournament at Peary Das Lane. But the accused-convicts together with their associates also decided to play a rubber-ball tournament at the very place on the self-same day. that is on 15.8.87. To avoid trouble, P.W. 10. Sankar Sarkar, who was the Secretary of the said club, associated with different social welfare activities, approached the convicts and their associates who were also boys of the said locality for an amicable settlement. When P.W. 10. accompanied by Panchu Gopal, since deceased (emphasis supplied) and some other boys of the club proposed to the appellants and their associates to change their venue or to shift the date of their playing instead of playing at that very place on 15.8.87, the appellants and others were very much adamant and they refused to agree to the proposal (vide deposition of P.W. 10. Sankar Sarkar). This seems to have generated the ill-feeling turning out to be a vicious and violent crime the next day leading to the murder of the said Panchu Gopal in the most concreted manner in which these three appellants were'' the chief contributors. There can be no doubt about the mischievous meetings of minds of these three assailants bent upon killing the said Panchu Gopal in a brutal manner as the repeated bomb attack on him by the said assailants would clearly suggest.

We have plenty of evidence-clear and consistent-coming from the verbal account of the incident on oath, almost in graphic details, on the material parts to dispel all doubts about who the authors of this heinous crime were and they were these appellants.

We have carefully gone through the eye-witnesses'' account. P.W. 7, Tarak Nath Chatterjee, who was the elder brother of deceased Panchu Gopal Chatterjee and living in the joint family with P.W. 8, Ram Dulal Chatterjee, who was the father of the deceased and here, residents of that locality and near the place of occurrence have given a vivid account of the murderous bomb assault not only on the deceased Panchu Gopal but also on the said P.W. 7. Tarak Nath Chatterjee and his father and that of the deceased. P.W. 8. P.W. 9. Kailash Singh Mehara has a tea-shop close to the place of occurrence and he was very much there at the time when the murder took place. So was P.W. 11 who had a sweetmeat shop close to the said 178/2, Ramesh Dutta Street. They were also together with PW. 7 and PW.8 who saw almost the entire incident with their own eyes. Again P.W. 12, Mritunjoy Guchaiyat, is one who was very much a resident of the said 178/2, Ramesh Dutta Street and just when he was coming out of his house he saw the incident. In fact, the life of P.W. 7 was saved because being chased by the appellants, P.W. 7 managed to enter into the said P.W. 12''s house who immediately closed the door and the bomb hurled by the assailants at P.W. 7 hit only the door. There are also other witnesses namely, Banshi Badan Bid, who had a kerosene oil shop and Jagadish Chandra Mondal, P.W. 16. who had a Bidi and Cigarette shop close to the place of occurrence and they were also eye-witnesses to the bomb explosion and scuffling between deceased Panchu Gopal and the assailants.

The oral evidence of the eye-witnesses have made it abundantly clear that these three appellants Sankar, Monoj and Ashok came together on the scene with bombs in their hands, that Ashok caught hold of Panchu Gopal who was assaulted by Sankar, that when deceased Panchu somehow managed to escape their clutches and started running away. Sankar hurled a bomb which hit Panchu Gopal right on his head resulting him to fall down with heavy bleeding injuries, that P.W. 7 then rushed towards Panchu and pleaded with the assailants not to hurt his brother any more but Ashok then hurled a bomb but it did not explode and that then Monoj Soni hurled a bomb at Panchu which had burst and the splinters caused injury to P.W. 7 who then rushed towards 178/2, Ramesh Dutta Street and as soon as he entered there, Ashok hurled a bomb which hit the door but fortunately by then the door was made to close and he was virtually saved by P.W. 12 Mritunjoy. that P.W. 8, the father of the deceased, who had also rushed out into the scene, was holding the head of his son Panchu Gopal in his lap. These three appellants also had hurled bombs at him and Panchu and his father PW. 8 also got injuries by this. Panchu was taken to the Medical College and Hospital where he expired on the next day, that is on 16.8.87. It is clear that these 3 appellants, who are the assailants, were brutally bent upon taking the life of deceased Panchu Gopal and wanted to make sure that they succeeded in their concerted action to kill Panchu as their chasing the victim and the repeated bomb attacks by them individually and also together would plainly suggest.

The medical evidence afforded by P.W. 21, Dr. Tapas Kr. Bose would only reinforce the oral testimony of the witnesses leading to the murder of the said Panchu Gopal. P.W. 21. Dr. T. K. Bose on 17.8.87 had held the post-mortem examination on Panchu Gopal since deceased. He found multiple injuries on the dead body and in his opinion, the cause of death was due to the effect of head injuries and other associated injuries resulting from explosion of explosive materials like that of a bomb, anti-mortem and homicidal in nature. His further opinion also fortifies the prosecution case. According to him in bomb blast injury the margin of lacerated injury will show evidence of burnings and blackening and those symptoms were also found in the instant case and apart from these there were singing of scalp hairs and petechill haemorrhagic spots present in the left arm and forearm which were suggestive of bomb blast injuries.

After a careful scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses discussed above including the medical evidence, we have no manner of doubt that the present appellants namely, Sankar, Monoj and Ashok were decidedly the authors of the heinous murder of the said Panchu Gopal, since deceased.

In the course of discussion of the respective contentions of the parties that the prosecution and defence by way of arguments placed before us, we have already highlighted the points and counterpoints agitated before us and which were supported by different decisions of the Apex Court. We think, having discussed them and having also stated what the case-laws cited by the defence and particularly a host of them by the prosecution were, a repetition of the same is not necessitated. We might straightaway say that the defence arguments particularly those with regard to the alleged concoction of the FIR and the credibility of the witnesses and the so-called pitfalls in the investigating process have been stoutly and convincingly dispelled by the arguments and the different case-laws cited by the prosecution and as already stated before. We are of the opinion that the case-laws cited by the prosecution, as already discussed, would only reinforce the truthfulness and credibility of the account of the eye-witnesses and also the ultimate success and invincibility of the prosecution case. However, we cannot help repeating only to the extent that the very fact that the two eye-witnesses P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 who were the brother and father of deceased Panchu respectively and therefore, being relatives of the deceased, have turned out to be the most natural witnesses and as has been pointed out In Pattad Amarappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, . where the occurrence took place near the house of the prosecution witnesses and the witnesses examined were residing with the witness near whose house occurrence took place their evidence would not be stigmatized and interested testimony because they happen to be near relations of the deceased and the prosecution case could not be rejected on such score and again as the Supreme Court has said that it is the totality of the evidence which matter and if the same creates a confidence of acceptability of such an evidence, the question of rejection on being ascribed as interested witnesses would not be justifiable-Munshi Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2002 SCC (Cr) 175. We might also refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in G. Laxmanna and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . where it was held that when the deceased and the eye-witnesses belong to one family they were natural witnesses and moreover, 2 of the witnesses were also injured just as in the instant case of ours and their evidence must be held to be reliable and conviction on the basis of the relative witnesses was proper. With regard to the First Information Report, Ext. 5 which has come under fire so much by the defence, it must be borne in mind that the First Information Report only results in initiation of the investigation and could be used only against the maker, that once the evidence are laid before the Court at a trial, the prosecution case is then for consideration in the light of this evidence with regard to its trustworthiness and reliability tested on the scales of corroboration between the ocular version and the medical evidence. Moreover, as laid down in Apren Joseph, 1973 SCC (Cr.) 195, the First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. The statute also does not provide that it must be by an eye-witness. It is also not a substantive piece of evidence and could be used to contradict and corroborate maker only. Moreover, as stated in Rattan Singh, 1997 SCC (Cr.) 525 by the Apex Court, Criminal Courts should not be fastidious with mere omissions in the First Information Report statements. The point is, some infirmities with regard to the time of occurrence and some omissions in the FIR or some discrepancies in respect thereof will certainly not taint the unimpeachable testimony of the eye-witnesses buttressed by the medical evidence as it is here in this particular case of ours. The totality of the evidence would unmistakably fasten the guilt of murder upon the assailants, that is the three appellants here. The mere fact that the Investigating Officer committed some irregularity or illegality during the course of investigation would not and must not cast any doubt upon the prosecution case which is otherwise found to be perfectly in order in bringing home the truth-that the appellants are the ones who had committed the murder in pursuance of their common intention. Reference may be made in this connection to the case-laws in State of Rajasthan vs. Kishore, 1996 SCC (Cr) 646 and Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana, 2000 SCC (Cr) 222. We have found the evidence of the witnesses to be more truthful because there is no evidence of any reason why the appellants should be falsely implicated in this case.

Moreover, in the matter of appreciation of evidence in searching for truth, evidence goes by the quality and not by the numbers. And by all reasonable standards, the prosecution evidence in this case not only quantitatively but also qualitatively passes the test on the anvil of truth-that these three appellants indeed had caused the murder and were rightly sentenced to life imprisonment having been correctly found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. There is, therefore, no reason for interference with the Impugned judgment and order passed by the learned City Sessions Court, Calcutta, dt. 12.12.90.

The appeal, accordingly stands dismissed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.

Amit Talukdar, J.

I agree.