Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 487 (CAL)

Dilu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

2014-06-05

SHIB SADHAN SADHU, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2014
JUDGMENT Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.: The prosecution case is that on December 27, 1997 at 16.50 hours the prosecution’s witness No. 1, Dilu Ghosh, filed a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Dhubulia Police Station, contending that his brother Swapan Ghosh was murdered on the same day at about 15.30 hours when he went to Parmedia Mouza to inspect the standing crops in his own field. The agricultural land of Swapan Ghosh was close to the land of Susanta Ghosh of village Mayakole. The accused Sakshi Ghosh fired at Sambhu Ghosh from a pipe-gun on his right armpit. When the victim was trying to escape from the place of occurrence, he fell down on the ground. The accused Swapan Ghosh chopped off Sambhu Ghosh by a ramdao. Arup Ghosh, Bangshi Ghosh and Paritosh Ghosh inflicted injuries to the victim by ramdao on his hands and legs. Accused Basudeb Ghosh incited the other accused persons to kill the victim. The son of the victim, namely, Sagar Ghosh and victim’s uncle, Sachin Ghosh, and victim’s brother, Sribash Ghosh, were the eye witnesses of the murder. They subsequently, informed the de facto complainant. On the basis of such written complaint Dhubulia Police Station Case No. 142 of 1997, dated December 27, 1997 was started against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted indicting 12 (twelve) accused persons. The accused persons were committed to trial. The defence was complete denial and it was alleged that they were falsely implicated as they were political rivalries between the families of the accused and the de facto complainant. There are number of eye-witnesses in this case. They unequivocally stated that accused Sakshi Ghosh fired the victim with a pipe-gun and accused Swapan Ghosh, Arup Ghosh, Bangshi Ghosh and Paritosh Ghosh inflicted grievious injuries by ramdao. The prosecution’s witness No. 5, Hangsha Ghosh, was an eye-witness. At the time of the incident he was working in his land, which was near to the place of the occurrence. He heard a sound of firing and he noticed that Sambhu Ghosh was lying on the ground. He saw Sakshi Ghosh armed with a pipe-gun. He found the other accused persons were chopping off Sambhu Ghosh’s hands and legs. At the time of the incident he was working in his land, which was near to the place of the occurrence. He heard a sound of firing and he noticed that Sambhu Ghosh was lying on the ground. He saw Sakshi Ghosh armed with a pipe-gun. He found the other accused persons were chopping off Sambhu Ghosh’s hands and legs. He, also, noticed Sagar (Prosecution’s Witness no.10), Sachin (Prosecution’s Witness no.3), Sribas (Prosecution’s Witness no. 6), Shyamal (Prosecution’s Witness no.7) at the place of the occurrence. The Prosecution’s Witness No. 6, Sribash Ghosh, reiterated those incidents and he, also, stated that Bashudeb Ghosh was encouraging the other accused persons to kill Sambhu Ghosh. The Prosecution’s Witness No. 8, namely, Shyamal Ghosh, also, corroborated the evidence of all the aforementioned eye-witnesses. Sagar Ghosh, the Prosecution’s Witness No. 10, was the son of the victim. He, also, witnessed the murder of his father. The Prosecution’s Witness No. 11, namely, Dr. Sunil Kumar Mondal, was attached to Nadia District Hospital. He conducted the post mortem of the victim. He found about 9 (nine) injuries including bullet injury. He opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage with chest injury and bullet injury, which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He stated that there was bullet injury and other deep sharp cut injuries. He proved the post mortem report of the deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused Badal Ghosh was not guilty in relation to the charges punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Badal Ghosh was acquitted, but the remaining 11 (eleven) accused persons were found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were all directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. In default of payment of such fine, they were to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. It was, further, directed that the period of detention undergone by each of the accused persons during the period of investigation or trial would be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have, carefully, considered the evidence adduced in support of the prosecution. We are of the considered opinion that the eye witnesses have established the prosecution case beyond any doubt. We have, carefully, considered the evidence adduced in support of the prosecution. We are of the considered opinion that the eye witnesses have established the prosecution case beyond any doubt. The allegation of political rivalry suggested by the defence was not proved. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence requiring interference by this Court. Thus, these three appeals are dismissed. The accused/appellant no. 1, namely, Dilu Ghosh, appellant no. 2, namely, Chandu Ghosh, appellant no. 6, namely Sanyashi Ghosh, appellant no. 7, namely, Hola Ghosh, appellant no. 8, namely, Kapil Ghosh and the appellant no. 10, namely, Badan alias Swarup Ghosh, in C.R.A. 210 of 2006, are on bail during pendency of the said appeal. They are directed to surrender forthwith before the Court below within a fortnight to serve out the remaining period of sentence.