Judgment Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah on 11th December, 2003 and 12th December, 2003 convicting the appellant/petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. 2. Put in a short frame, the prosecution case is as follows:- 3. On 30th day of January, 2003 around 5:20 p.m. accused Mohan Mondal assaulted school teacher Pradip Santra on pucca road at Khalia bazar with a wooden stick resulting serious injuries and that when witnesses of this case raised alarm Mohan fled away with said lathi and that injured Pradip was admitted at Uluberia Hospital wherein he succumbed to his injuries. On receipt of a written complaint to that effect from one Asim Kumar Mondal, Shyampur P.S. Case No. 8 of 2003 dated 30.01.2003 was started. During investigation police recovered the weapon of assault as per statement of arrested accused Mohan Mondal and after completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After commitment of the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Howrah and after transfer of the case for disposal charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was accordingly framed against accused Mohan Mondal who pleaded not guilty. Accordingly trial started and after completion of trial learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty and convicted him as aforesaid. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses in this regard. (5) Out of total 25 witnesses witness no. 1,6,11 and 14 claimed to be eye witnesses. P.W.2 was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that on 30th January, 2003 he was with Ranjit Mondal, Noor Ali Molla, Mana Das by the side of a electric goomty. Buddhiman Pathak and Kamal Pramanik were also present there. He further deposed that they found Mohan Mondal was loitering on the road with wooden ‘lathi’. P.W.2 was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that on 30th January, 2003 he was with Ranjit Mondal, Noor Ali Molla, Mana Das by the side of a electric goomty. Buddhiman Pathak and Kamal Pramanik were also present there. He further deposed that they found Mohan Mondal was loitering on the road with wooden ‘lathi’. When Pradip Santra (deceased) the headmaster of Kuliya Amir Ali High School was returning home through that road Mohan Mondal assaulted him with ‘lathi’ from behind on his head several times and the deceased fell down facing on earth. Then P.W.1 raised hue and cry immediately and many persons assembled there and Mohan Mondal fled away with ‘lathi’. In his cross examination the P.W.1 stated that Mohan has some family dispute with his wife and he was in a mental disturbance. As village ‘Salish’ failed to resolve their dispute they were advised to go to court. The P.W.1 further stated that he could not apprehend Mohan as he fled away. P.W.2 was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 is a hearsay witness. He stated in his evidence that on 30th January, 2003 at about 5 to 5.50 P.M. he was playing cards by the side of Bhumili’s tea shop. One Sristhidhar Auth informed them that Mohan Mondal murdered Pradip Santra. After hearing that he rushed to the scene of occurrence and found that Pradip Babu (deceased) was lying on road facing on the earth in pool of blood and that Mohan Mondal was fleeing away with a wooden stick in his hand. P.W.4 was a post occurrence witness, brother of the deceased in his cross examination stated that he was not examined by the police. P.W.5 was a teacher resident of that locale where the deceased stayed. In his evidence he stated that on 30th January, 2003 around 5:30 P.M. he learnt from his brother Biswanath Santra that Mohan Mondal murdered Pradip Santra with a ‘lathi’. After learning that he came to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased was already taken to the hospital. Then he went to the hospital on that day where Pradip babu (deceased) died. He also stated in his cross examination that they usually hold ‘Salish’ in village to solve the dispute of villagers. After learning that he came to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased was already taken to the hospital. Then he went to the hospital on that day where Pradip babu (deceased) died. He also stated in his cross examination that they usually hold ‘Salish’ in village to solve the dispute of villagers. He stated to the Investigating Officer that he along with deceased and others held ‘Salish’ to solve the dispute between Mohan and his wife. As Mohan’s wife and his in-laws openly complained to them that their daughter (Mohan’s wife) was regularly tortured by Mohan (accused). (6) P.W.6 claimed himself as an eye witness of the incident stated in his cross examination that on 30th January, 2003 at about 5:20 P.M. when he was passing through the road of Kuliya Bazar he saw that Mohan assaulted Pradip Babu. After seeing that he raised hue and cry. Immediately 50/60 persons assembled there. But he did not try to apprehend Mohan. He further stated that victim Pradip Santra was his cousin and seeing his condition he became perplexed. He further stated that Sristhidhar Auth, Probhat Santra, Suprokash Santra and Ranjit Mondal and many others assembled there and he further stated that he did not go to police station and on that night at about 10 to 10:30 p.m. police came and he read down the Ejahar at Kuliya Bazar at around 10 P.M. (7) P.W.7 was the seizure list witness of blood-stained earth of the place of occurrence (marked as Exbt.3) and P.W.8 was the seizure list witness of ‘lathi’ stated in his cross examination that he along with Gautam Das and Dibakar Dheki and accused Mohan Mondal accompanied police and as per identification of Mohan (accused) ‘lathi’ was recovered from the jungle of Burning Ghat but he did not find the seized ‘lathi’ in the court. P.W.9 and 10 were tendered by the prosecution. P.W.11 claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence stated in his evidence that on 30th January, 2003 he along with Sristidhar Auth, Mana Das and Noor Ali were playing cards near his shop and Buddhiman Pathak and others were just watching the game. At that time Mohan was found loitering with a ‘lathi’. P.W.11 claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence stated in his evidence that on 30th January, 2003 he along with Sristidhar Auth, Mana Das and Noor Ali were playing cards near his shop and Buddhiman Pathak and others were just watching the game. At that time Mohan was found loitering with a ‘lathi’. He also stated when Pradip Santra (deceased) was coming from the side of Kuliya High School accused Mohan from behind assaulted Pradip Babu with a ‘lathi’ on his head for several times. Pradip Babu fell down. Mohan further gave ¾ blows. When they shouted then accused Mohan Mondal fled away by the side of the ‘Karat Kal’ (Saw Mill). Many persons then came and assembled to the scene of occurrence and the victim was sent to the Uluberia Hospital. P.W.12 was also tendered by the prosecution. P.W.13 is a Saw Mill owner. He was also the signatory of the seizure list of ‘lathi’ (Exbt.4/1). P.W.14 also claimed to be an eye witness but he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. For the first time in Court he deposed that he found accused Mohan Mondal to assault Pradip with a ‘lathi’ from his back on his head. Immediately thereafter Mohan fled away by the side of the shop of Gautam with that ‘lathi’. P.W.14 along with others took injured Pradip Santra to hospital. P.W.15, 16 were also tendered by the prosecution. P.W.17 was the S.I of police who prepared the seizure list (marked as Exbt.1/1). He also prepared dead body challan (Exbt.5). He also held inquest in connection with the said case. P.W.18, signatory of the seizure list (Exbt.3/1). P.W.19 was also seizure list witness (Exbt.4/2). P.W.20 was tendered by the prosecution. P.W.21 was also tendered by the prosecution. P.W.22 police personnel attached to Shyampur P.S. as S.I of police who started Shyampur P.S. Case No.8 of 2003 dated 30th January, 2003. P.W.23 was the Investigating Officer who arrested the accused. He deposed that accused confessed before him that he committed the murder of deceased with the help of a ‘lathi’ and he concealed the same in Ghosh Para Burning Ghat. He further deposed that accused brought out the ‘lathi’. Then he seized the same in presence of the accused and other witnesses under the seizure list (Exbt.4/3). He also prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence with index (Exbt.7). He further deposed that accused brought out the ‘lathi’. Then he seized the same in presence of the accused and other witnesses under the seizure list (Exbt.4/3). He also prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence with index (Exbt.7). He examined available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he examined one Kamal Pramanik who stated before him that around 5:20 P.M. when Pradip Santra headmaster of Kuliya High School was returning home through ‘Saw Mill’ of Gouram Das then accused Mohan Mondal suddenly assaulted Pradip Santra with a wooden ‘lathi’. He further stated that the place of occurrence was ¾ meter away from his place. In his cross examination he stated that he received the said information at about 8:15 P.M.. It was diaried vide G.D. Entry No.1251 dated 30.1.2003. He submitted that Goutam Das and many other persons were also present there. He seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence but he did not send the same to Forensic Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as FSL) Examination. On 31st January 2003, in early morning around 6:15 a.m. he arrested the accused. He further stated in his cross examination that he did not find the said seized ‘lathi’ in the Court. He further deposed that he examined some local shop keepers who were made witnesses in this case. (8) P.W.24 was the Autopsy Surgeon who prepared the post mortem report. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on examination he found one incised looking wound about 1” x ½” x bone depth in the right parieto occipital region, two lacerated wound on the right side of the occipital region lying obliquely over the occipital bone about 1½” x 1”, multiple fracture of right parietal bone with hemorrhage in the brain matter, occipital bone was crushed several pieces with haematoma in the lair of scalp and brain matter, fracture of dislocation of altano occipital bone, bleeding from nostrils present, blood clot was present in the oral cavity, cerebral vessel rapture. He further stated that death was, in his opinion, due to immediate cause, shock, hemorrhage and head injury and other injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He further stated that this types of injury may occur if a person was assaulted with a wooden roller. He further stated that death was, in his opinion, due to immediate cause, shock, hemorrhage and head injury and other injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He further stated that this types of injury may occur if a person was assaulted with a wooden roller. But in his cross examination he further stated that those injuries might occur being assaulted with multiple strikes. (9) P.W.25 attached to Shyampur P.S. who brought the Shyampur P.S. G.D. Book containing G.D. Entry No.1251 dated 30.01.2014. (10) Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution tried to prove their case on the basis of the alleged 4 eye witnesses. He further submitted that P.W.1, P.W.6, P.W.11 and P.W.14 the alleged eye witnesses deposed that they were very attentively playing cards and other were watching the same. The alleged eye witnesses deposed that they did not hear any hue and cry. Therefore, as per Mr. Chatterjee it was not possible for the alleged eye witnesses to see the occurrence as they were busy to play cards minutely and others were also busy to watch the same. P.W.14 claimed as eye witness stated in his evidence that the Investigating Officer did not examine him and first time he was deposing before the Court. Therefore, Mr. Chatterjee contended that actually there were only 2 eye witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.6. Mr. Chatterjee further contended that alleged eye witnesses did not try to apprehend the accused. Therefore it is very much doubtful whether they were at all present on the spot at the time of occurrence. He further contended that the recovered weapon was not sent for FSL Examination and it was not even produced before the Court and said Mohan Mondal, the accused was arrested on next day i.e. on 31st January, 2003 and not on the date of occurrence. He further contended that P.W.13 deposed that police never came with Mohan. Mr. Chatterjee further contended that Mana Das, Buddhiman Pathak and Sristhidhar Auth were not examined by the Investigating Officer. He further urged that though Investigating Officer in his deposition stated that he examined one Kamal Pramanik but said Kamal Pramanik deposed that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. He finally submitted that the prosecution shockingly failed to prove its case; furthermore there were discrepancies and contradictions and lacunae amongst the evidence of witnesses. He further urged that though Investigating Officer in his deposition stated that he examined one Kamal Pramanik but said Kamal Pramanik deposed that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. He finally submitted that the prosecution shockingly failed to prove its case; furthermore there were discrepancies and contradictions and lacunae amongst the evidence of witnesses. Therefore, on the basis of such weak evidence conviction cannot be imposed by the prosecution. (11) On the other hand Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta appearing for the State submitted that P.W.1, author of the F.I.R was an eye witness and the accused was arrested on 31st January, 2003 from the bus stop and not from his house which leads to suspect that accused apprehending that he would be arrested for murder of the deceased, tried to flee out of station. (12) Mr. Gupta further contended that evidence of the witnesses were corroborating with the FIR and P.M. Report. Therefore the impugned judgment and order deserves no interference by the Hon’ble Court. He further contended that it was not a single blow. It is evident from the evidence of the witnesses the accused was seen that he assaulted the deceased with 4/5 blows from the back on his head (deceased) with ‘lathi’ when the deceased was returning home from school which might cause death as per the opinion of the autopsy surgeon. (13) Mr. Gupta further pointed out that the evidence of eye witnesses corroborated with each other and also corroborated with FIR, Inquest Report and Post Mortem report. Therefore, accused is not entitled to get punishment under Section 304 (Part-I) as prayed for by the learned Advocate of the appellant. (14) There cannot be any dispute that the deceased Pradip Santra died a homicidal death. Now the question is whether the prosecution has been able to connect the present accused with the alleged crime. (15) After carefully scrutinising the evidence both oral as well as documentary we find that the evidence of eye witnesses corroborated with each other and also corroborated with FIR, Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report. We also find from the evidence of P.W.24, Autopsy Surgeon stated that those types of injury might occur if a person was assaulted with wooden roller. He further stated in his cross examination that those injuries might occur on being assaulted with multi-strikes. We also find from the evidence of P.W.24, Autopsy Surgeon stated that those types of injury might occur if a person was assaulted with wooden roller. He further stated in his cross examination that those injuries might occur on being assaulted with multi-strikes. It is evident from the evidence of eye witnesses that accused assaulted the deceased for several times on the back portion of his head with a ‘lathi’ as a result of which Pradip Santra (deceased) fell down. Then Mohan Mondal, the accused again gave ¾ blows with the said ‘lathi’ on the head of said Pradip Santra. We find that this evidence of eye witnesses corroborated with the FIR, the Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report which is supported by the evidence of P.W.24, the Autopsy Surgeon. Therefore, there is no room to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses which corroborated with the FIR as well as the Post Mortem Report. (16) We also find from the testimony of the witnesses that the accused had a regular family problem with his wife which went up to village ‘Salish’ where the deceased along with P.W.5 took part to ressolve the said matrimonial dispute between the accused and his wife. Therefore, it is crystal clear that since Pradip Santra (deceased), Headmaster of Kuliya Amir Ali High School took part in the said village ‘Salish’, therefore, the accused out of grudge to take revenge against the said Headmaster (deceased) with the motive to murder him assaulted him on 30.01.2003 with ‘lathi’ on the back portion of his head when the said Headmaster was returning from school through Kuliya Road. We therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused and the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the guilt was proved against the appellant. (17) The sum total of the foregoing discussion is that the Trial Court has appropriately appreciated the evidence on record and has held the appellant guilty. We do not find any merit in the appeal. No interference is called for in exercise of our appellate powers. The appeal must fail and thus stands dismissed. (18) The office is directed to send the Lower Court Records at once.