RAM BHADRA vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Joymalya Bagchi, J

The appellant appears to have served out the sentence in the meantime. Lower court records have been received. Under such circumstances, the

appeal is taken up for hearing.

The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 16th/17th September, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court-3, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Case No. 1 (2) 2007 [Sessions Trial No. 2 (5) 2007] convicting the appellant for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 325/304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three

years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 325

IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for

the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC; both the sentences to run concurrently.

The prosecution case against the appellant is to the effect that on 27th September, 2006 at 8:30 hours there was an altercation between the appellant

and his mother, Laxmi Bhadra as he had demanded money from her. Laxmi refused to pay and the appellant started beating her. Shyamal Bhadra,

brother of the appellant intervened and tried to resist him from bearing their mother. Appellant picked up a wooden rod and struck Shyamal on the

head. As a result Shyamal suffered bleeding injuries and fell down. He was shifted to the hospital. The appellant was detained and accosted at the

spot. In the meantime the victim expired. Over the incident, Habra Police Station Case No. 237 dated 27th September, 2006 under Sections

325/326/308 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. Subsequently, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 325/308/304 of the

Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 325/304 IPC against

the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited a

number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned

judgement and order dated 16th/17th September, 2009 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

I have perused the evidence on record.

PW2, mother of the appellant is an eyewitness. She deposed that the appellant had demanded money from her and as she refused to pay, he started

assaulting her.

Shyamal, brother of the appellant intervened and the appellant assaulted him with a wooden log on the head. Shyamal suffered a fracture on the head

and fell down at the spot. He was shifted to the hospital where he expired.

In cross-examination, she admitted that she did not see the appellant hit Shyamal.

Other witnesses are post-occurrence witnesses to the incident.

PW9, Dr. Sanjit Kumar Patra conducted post-mortem over the body of the victim. He found several injuries on the body particularly fracture on the

head. He proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit-7). He deposed that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries which are

ante mortem in nature.

PW10, S.I. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty is the Investigating Officer of the case.

Analysis of the evidence on record particularly that of the mother of the victim, Laxmi Bhadra (PW2) would show that the appellant had initially

started assaulting her as she refused to pay money and when the victim Shyamal intervened and tried to save her, he suffered bleeding injuries at the

hands of the appellant. Although PW2, in crossexamination, admitted that she had not seen the actual act of assault on Shyamal but the circumstances

portrayed by her leading to the fracture injury on the head of the victim leave not doubt in one’s mind that the assault was at the behest of the

appellant and no one else. Medical evidence of PW9 corroborates the genesis of the incident as coming out from the mouth of the eyewitness (PW2).

In view of the aforesaid fact, I am inclined to upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.

The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence

imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

 Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.