Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 455 (CAL)

PRAFULLA HAIDER v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-07-26

ALOK KUMAR BASU, TAPAS KUMAR GIRI

body2006
ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) PRAFULLA Haider, Lakshman Haider and Biswanath haider, all of village Garkhali under P. S. Falta in the district of 24-Parganas (South)faced Sessions Trial case No. 2 (5) of 1994 before the learned Additional Sessions judge, 4th Court, Alipore under Section 302/34 of the 1pc for murdering all the four male members of the family of de facto complainant, Ranjita Haider of village Garkhali. Lakshman Haider, however, escaped the trial by his death. ( 2 ) BOTH Biswanath Haider and Prafulla haider after conclusion of trial were convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months. ( 3 ) PRAFULLA Haider and Biswanath Haider preferred Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2003 respectively, but, since nobody appeared on their behalf at the time of admission of those two appeals, both the appeals were dismissed for default at the admission stage. ( 4 ) PRAFULLA Haider, however, subsequently filed Criminal Appeal 453 of 2003 and that appeal was admitted in accordance with law and we are now to dispose of that appeal of prafulla Haider. ( 5 ) WE get the prosecution story behind the present trial and appeal from the recorded statement of Ranjita Haider whose husband Pravas Haider and three minor sons were killed. From the recorded statement of Ranjita Haider we find that there was a long standing dispute over possession and enjoyment of usufruct of two coconut trees between deceased Pravas Haider in one hand and appellant Prafulla and biswanath on the other and Prafulla was the youngest brother of deceased Pravas while biswanath was the son of the eldest brother of deceased Pravas. ( 6 ) ON 10-5-1992 in the absence of pravas, Prafulla, Biswanath and Lakshman plucked coconut fruits from the ejmali coconut trees and getting information about this from his wife Ranjita, Pravas made protest in the afternoon and there was altercation between pravas and the accused persons. At about 7 p. m. in the evening all the accused persons came to the house of Pravas and entering into his room assaulted him with dao and Pravas succumbed to his injuries. The accused persons did not stop there. At about 7 p. m. in the evening all the accused persons came to the house of Pravas and entering into his room assaulted him with dao and Pravas succumbed to his injuries. The accused persons did not stop there. They also brought all the three minor sons of Pravas, Paban, Pralhad and Gopal by dragging from their room and also assaulted them with dao. Pralhad succumbed to his injuries on the spot and Gopal and paban being seriously injured were brought to Diamond Harbour hospital by her mother with the help of neighbours and soon after their admission in the hospital, both of them succumbed to their respective injuries. ( 7 ) RANJITA, the unfortunate housewife witnessing the tragic and inhuman killing of the entire male members of her family rushed to the Falta P. S. and gave the ejahar which was treated as FIR to start a specific case against the accused persons. ( 8 ) P. W. 15 S. I. Karshed All Biswas of falta P. S. in course of investigation visited the place of occurrence, shifted the dead bodies of Pravas and his sons for postmortem examination, examined the available witnesses of the occurrence, arrested lakshman and Biswanath from their house also seized incriminating weapons from their possession, also collected post-mortem reports and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against Prafulla, lakshman and Biswanath under Section 302/34 of the IPC. ( 9 ) AFTER framing charge against Prafulla and Biswanath, the learned Trial Judge recorded the statement of 15 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and, that apart, the learned Trial Judge also brought on record the respective inquest reports and post-mortem reports of the four deceased, seizure lists and also the recorded statement of Ranjita Haider. ( 9 ) AFTER framing charge against Prafulla and Biswanath, the learned Trial Judge recorded the statement of 15 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and, that apart, the learned Trial Judge also brought on record the respective inquest reports and post-mortem reports of the four deceased, seizure lists and also the recorded statement of Ranjita Haider. ( 10 ) THE learned Judge, on perusal of the prosecution evidence found that several witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution namely P. W. 1 Ranjita Haider, P. W. 2 tuma Haider, P. W. 3 Juthika Haider, P. W. 5 Balaram Haider, P. W. 6 Usha Baxi, P. W. 8 Renuka Haider and P. W. 10 Manoka haider were the eyewitnesses of the occurrence and all these witnesses in one voice deposed during trial that on the date of occurrence they had seen the accused persons to assault the four deceased persons with dao and as a result of such assault, Pravas and one of his sons died on the spot and two other sons were shifted to hospital where they died within a short time. ( 11 ) THE learned Trial Judge also considered deposition of Dr. Nabanita Chatterjee p. W. 9 who conducted post-mortem examination over four dead bodies and gave her specific opinion regarding cause of death and also regarding the weapons used for causing the injuries on all the deceased persons. The learned Trial Judge also took into consideration the evidence of P. W. 13 Dr. Manotosh Hajari who was present when gopal Haider and Paban Haider were admitted by their mother Ranjita Haider and this doctor also prepared injury report of both Paban and Gopal and recorded the history of assault to the effect that accused persons assaulted with heavy sharp cutting weapons. The learned Trial Judge with reference to the statement of investigating officer P. W. 15 and P. W. 7 Kanai Mondal also found that soon after the occurrence and during investigation the incriminating weapons were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. ( 12 ) THE learned Trial Judge from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and also from the statement of three defence witnesses had an idea regarding the defence case which was the plea of alibi taken specifically by the present appellant prafulla and the plea of self defence taken by both Prafulla and Biswanath, the nonappellant convict. ( 12 ) THE learned Trial Judge from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and also from the statement of three defence witnesses had an idea regarding the defence case which was the plea of alibi taken specifically by the present appellant prafulla and the plea of self defence taken by both Prafulla and Biswanath, the nonappellant convict. ( 13 ) THE learned Judge by recording sufficient reasons refused to believe the alibi of prafulla and also declined to accept the plea of self defence as raised on behalf of the accused persons. ( 14 ) THE learned Judge, therefore, after considering the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that on 10th May, 1992 at the house of Ranjita Haider appellant prafulla along with Biswanath Haider and lakshman Halder assaulted Pravas Haider and his three sons by dao resulting their death ultimately and the learned Judge was of further view that there was no grounds whatsoever to consider the defence plea of right of private defence and also the specific plea of appellant Prafulla that he was absent at the time of occurrence. The learned trial Judge, therefore, holding Prafulla and biswanath guilty of the offence of murder of four persons as indicated, convicted both of them under Section 302/34 of the IPC. ( 15 ) IN this appeal, Mr. S. S. Roy and Ms. Minoti Gomes appeared for the appellant prafulla Haider. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants placed the entire evidence before us both oral and documentary. We have heard submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants as well as the learned advocate for the State respondent. ( 16 ) ON examination of the recorded statement of ranjita Haider which was the first information report of the case, we find that the dispute arose out of sharing of usufruct of two coconut trees which were in the joint possession of deceased Pravas Haider as well as of the accused persons facing the trial including the present appellant. We find from the FIR that deceased Pravas Haider getting after getting information from his wife ranjita that in his absence Prafulla and other accused persons plucked coconut fruits went to the house of the accused persons to register his protest and at that time, there was altercation between Pravas and the accused persons. We find from the FIR that deceased Pravas Haider getting after getting information from his wife ranjita that in his absence Prafulla and other accused persons plucked coconut fruits went to the house of the accused persons to register his protest and at that time, there was altercation between Pravas and the accused persons. ( 17 ) WE find from FIR that at about 7 p. m. in the evening on 10th May, 1992, prafulla, Lakshman and Biswanath being armed with dao came to the house of Pravas haider and at first, all of them attacked and assaulted Pravas Haider and as a result of such assault with dao Pravas died on the spot. The three sons of Pravas were then inside the room and, in the fact, after witnessing attack on their father, all the three minor boys tried to run away, but, all the accused persons caught hold of them and started assaulting them with dao and as a result of such assault, one of the minor boys expired on the spot and the other two minor boys namely, Paban and Gopal were seriously injured and at that point of time, the accused persons had left the place. Paban and Gopal were subsequently taken to Diamond harbour Sub-Divisional hospital and within a short time both of them succumbed to their injuries. ( 18 ) DURING trial, Ranjita Haider reiterated her recorded statement given before the police officer Falta P. S. and she firmly stated that in her presence all the three accused persons assaulted her husband and three minor sons with the help of dao. The statement of Ranjita was fully corroborated by all the daughters of Ranjita who were present at the place of occurrence and also by the neighbouring persons who came at the place of occurrence hearing the shouting of the deceased persons and Ranjita. ( 19 ) IT appears from the statement of the dr. Hajari who was present at the Diamond harbour Sub-Divisional hospital during admission of Paban and Gopal that at the time of admission, Ranjita gave a statement that all the three accused persons assaulted the injured and also her husband. and another son who were already dead. Dr. Hajari also prepared injury report of Paban and Gopal who subsequently died at the hospital. and another son who were already dead. Dr. Hajari also prepared injury report of Paban and Gopal who subsequently died at the hospital. ( 20 ) THE investigating officer P. W. 15 in presence of P. W. 7 Kanai Mondal, soon after receipt of the written complaint, seized the dao from. the possession of Biswanath and lakshman from their house. ( 21 ) WE find from the statement of D. W. 3, a doctor of Diamond Harbour Sub-Divisional hospital that both Lakshman and Biswanath were also in the hospital with injuries on their person and it is available from the cross-examination of the doctor that if in an occurrence more than one person used sharp cutting weapon, the person participating in the occurrence may receive this type of injuries. ( 22 ) THE learned Trial Judge, on perusal of the statement of the eyewitnesses and with special reference to their cross-examination, did not find anything to disbelieve their statements and after taking into consideration the inquest report and postmortem report of the deceased persons and after considering the fact of seizure of the incriminating weapons, the learned Trial court fully accepted the prosecution case that Prafulla along with Lakshman and biswanath assaulted Pravas and his three sons with dao and as a result of such assault all of them died. ( 23 ) IT appears from the trend of cross-examination of the accused persons under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. that according to them Pravas and his three sons were the aggressors and they after coming over the house of the accused persons attacked them for which they received injuries on their person and thereafter villagers assaulted Pravas and his sons resulting their death. From the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by Prafulla, we get that specific plea of Prafulla was that he was absent at the time of occurrence and only after coming from his place of work, he came to know about the occurrence and he was falsely implicated in this case by Ranjita due to long standing enmity over possession of joint property. ( 24 ) WE have carefully considered submissions of Mr. Roy as well as Mr. ( 24 ) WE have carefully considered submissions of Mr. Roy as well as Mr. Safiullah appearing for the State respondent and on careful analysis of the prosecution evidence and also the evidence of the defence witnesses, we find that the plea of the accused persons that Pravas and his sons were aggressors cannot be accepted at all for the reasons that it is available from prosecution evidence that Pravas and one of his son died within the premises of Pravas and the other two sons also found injured near the house of Pravas, and that apart, from the statement of Dr. Nabanita Chatterjee who conducted post mortem examination, we find that all the three minor boys received most of the injuries on their head and face and those injuries were inflicted after they fell on the ground. ( 25 ) AFTER considering the nature of injuries suffered by the three minor boys and as corroborated by injury report and also by post mortem report, we are unable to accept the defence plea that Pravas and his sons were the aggressors and accused persons only in due exercise of their right of private defence assaulted the deceased persons. Naturally, when we cannot accept the defence plea, having regard to the prosecution evidence both oral and medical, we are bound to support the observation of the learned Trial Judge that Prafulla along with lakshman and Biswanath assaulted Pravas and his three minor sons resulting their death. ( 26 ) NOW, coming to the plea of alibi taken by Prafulla, we find from examination of the statement of D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 that although attempt was made to convince that Prafulla was absent at the place of occurrence, on close examination of the statement of D. W. 1 and D. W. 2, we find that the defence plea of alibi is not sustainable at all and the learned trial Judge rightly disbelieved the said defence plea of alibi. ( 27 ) THUS, after careful consideration of the prosecution evidence and after considering the statement of defence witnesses, we are of the view that prosecution with the help of evidence successfully proved that on 10th may, 1992 at about 7 P. M. , Prafulla along with two others assaulted Pravas and his three sons and caused their death and all the injuries appearing on the persons of pravas and his three sons were and mortem and homicidal in nature and at the same time, we are of the view that defence plea of right of self-defence and that of alibi of prafulla were not sustainable either in fact or in law and as a result, we find no merit in the present appeal. ( 28 ) MR. Safiullah contends that in this particular case the learned Trial Judge was very much lenient in the matter of awarding sentence against the accused persons and in his view it was an appropriate case where the learned Judge ought to have imposed capital sentence. As we find that State did not prefer any appeal for enhancing of sentence, the points taken by Mr. Safiullah at this stage cannot be entertained. ( 29 ) IN the result, we dismiss the appeal of Prafulla Haider and we confirm the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge. ( 30 ) SEND a copy of this judgment and order to the Superintendent of the Correctional home where Prafulla Haider and biswanath Haider are detained for their information. ( 31 ) SEND the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order to the learned Trial court forthwith for information and necessary action. Appeal dismissed.