JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 14/15.12.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No.27 of 2012 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more has been assailed. 2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that the appellants are dangerous and desperate men who were terrorising the fish traders in the locality. Meeting was convened by the merchant association over the issue and the appellants gave an undertaking that they will not create trouble. On 29th April, 2011, the appellants came to the fish stall of one Ajoy Dey, (P.W.1) and his elder brother Paritosh Dey @ Akal, the deceased herein ransacked their fish stall and looted money and fish as therefrom. The matter was informed to the police station as well as the local traders' association. Proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against him. Thereafter, the appellants again threatened the victim and his brother with dire consequences. 3. Finally, on 8.5.2011 at 6.30 A.M., the appellants accosted the victim in front of R.S.P. party office and assaulted him on his neck and shoulder with sharp cutting weapons and shot at the victim. As a result, the victim died. Over this incident, his brother Ajoy Dey, P.W.1 lodged first information report resulting in registration of Balurghat P.S. Case No.218 of 2011 dated 08.05.2011 under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. 4. In the course of investigation, the appellants were arrested and pursuant to the statement of Goutam Joarder one revolver with cartridge was recovered. On the statement of Shibu Kahar @ Dodon @ Dhuma a dagger and a bhojali were also recovered. Post mortem was conducted on the body of the victim and fragment of bullet was recovered from his body. Ballistic report was obtained with regard to seized fire arms and the bullet fragment recovered from the body of the victim. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and others. Post mortem was conducted on the body of the victim and fragment of bullet was recovered from his body. Ballistic report was obtained with regard to seized fire arms and the bullet fragment recovered from the body of the victim. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and others. Pursuant to direction passed by this Court in CRR No.3402 of 2011, the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions, Malda for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 302/120B IPC and under section 27(3) of the Arms Act. Co-accused Khokon Karmakar and Anay Upadhyay assailed the framing of charge before this court in CRR No.2559 of 2012 and a learned Judge of this court by order dated 06.08.2012 quashed the charges framed against the said co-accused. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 37 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. 5. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by judgment and order 14th and 15th December, 2012 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. 6. Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for all the appellants (except Raju Rabi Das alias Sera) argued that the eye-witnesses P.Ws 18 and 19 were not reliable. They had been belatedly examined by police and no explanation is forthcoming for such delayed examination. They had also embellished their versions in court when compared to their earlier statements to police. He relied on various authorities in support of such submission. If the evidence of P.Ws 18 and 19 is not believed, it is argued there is hardly any other material connecting the appellants with the alleged crime. Recovery of revolver and cartridge pursuant to the statement of Goutam Joarder has not been proved and there is no material to connect seizure of other weapons with the alleged offence. He also argued that bad character of the appellants has not been proved by producing contemporaneous documents, that is, complaints to police and other authorities and the ipse dixit of the witnesses in that regard may not be relied upon. 7. Mr. Safiulla appearing for Raju Rabi Das alias Sera adopted the submissions of Mr. Basu and supplemented it by arguing that no overt act had been attributed to his client by the witnesses and his name had not been stated before the police during investigation. 8. 7. Mr. Safiulla appearing for Raju Rabi Das alias Sera adopted the submissions of Mr. Basu and supplemented it by arguing that no overt act had been attributed to his client by the witnesses and his name had not been stated before the police during investigation. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the eyewitnesses are most natural and probable witnesses of the incident. P.Ws.18 and 19 have explained the circumstances justifying their presence at the place of occurrence. P.W.18 also gave out the reason for his delayed examination by police. In addition to his statement before police, statement of P.W.19 was recorded before learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reinforcing his credibility. There is hardly any deviation between the earlier statements of the said witnesses and their deposition in Court. Their ocular version is corroborated by medical evidence (P.W. 36- Post-Mortem doctor) and recovery of weapons of offence pursuant to the leading statements of Goutam Joarder and Shibu Kahar. 9. He also submitted that there is ample evidence on record that the appellants were dangerous persons and used to terrorise the fish sellers in the locality. Prosecution report under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in respect of one of the appellants, namely, Biltu Bhattacharya was produced during trial to substantiate the prosecution case. Hence, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. From the tenor of the submissions of the parties it appears that the prosecution case essentially hinges on the evidence of P.Ws.18 and 19 who are the eyewitnesses to the incident of murder. P.W.18 deposed that he is a fish seller and had a fish stall at a distance of 50 feet from that of the victim at Balurghat Taho Bazar. On 8.5.2011 between 6.00-6.30 a.m. he was going to his fish stall when he saw the incident in front of RSP Party Office from a distance of 50 feet. He saw Kartick, Shera, Biltu and Dodan assaulting the victim with Bhojali and Daw. Goutam shot from a pistol at him. Thereafter, they ran away. He deposed with regard to the previous disturbances created by the appellants on 29.4.2011. Victim had protested against such wrongful acts of the appellants who used to demand ransom and the matter was informed to police. 11. Goutam shot from a pistol at him. Thereafter, they ran away. He deposed with regard to the previous disturbances created by the appellants on 29.4.2011. Victim had protested against such wrongful acts of the appellants who used to demand ransom and the matter was informed to police. 11. In cross-examination, he stated that he was examined one month after the incident as he was away from Balurghat. He had not disclose the matter to anyone. He clarified he had not stated to Investigating Officer that Goutam had fired at the victim as he had not been asked with regard to the specific role of Goutam. 12. P.W.19 the other eyewitness deposed that he had gone out for a morning walk and saw the incident in front of RSP Party office on 8.5.2011 at 6.15 a.m. He stated that as he reached Sadhana More he found that the appellants were assaulting the victim. They assaulted him with fists, blows and sharp cutting weapons. The victim also sustained gunshot injuries. He made statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 13. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had been examined two months after the incident. 14. Evidence of the aforesaid witnesses have been severely criticised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants on the ground that they were not examined by police immediately after the incident. It is also contended that the specific roles of the appellants were stated for the first time in court. 15. I have given anxious consideration to such submissions on behalf of the appellants. Analysis of evidence of P.Ws.18 and 19 shows that both the witnesses have explained the circumstances leading to their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. P.W.18 is a fish stall owner and was going to his fish stall in the morning while P.W.19 had gone out for a morning walk and saw the incident when he reached Sadhana More. Hence, their presence at the place of occurrence had been adequately explained and they appear to be natural witnesses to the incident. When witnesses whose depositions are vital for the unfolding of the prosecution case are belatedly examined during investigation, a duty is cast on the court to subject their evidence to a deeper scrutiny. Hence, their presence at the place of occurrence had been adequately explained and they appear to be natural witnesses to the incident. When witnesses whose depositions are vital for the unfolding of the prosecution case are belatedly examined during investigation, a duty is cast on the court to subject their evidence to a deeper scrutiny. Keeping this wholesome legal premise in mind, I have sifted the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and I find adequate explanation for delayed examination has been offered by P.W.18 who claimed that he had gone away from Balurghat immediately after the incident resulting in his delayed examination during investigation. His version is criticised on the score that P.W.37, Investigating Officer stated there is no note for the reason of delayed examination of the witness in his case diary. When P.W.18 has himself given a plausible examination for his delayed examination in court, absence of entry in the case diary, contents whereof are inadmissible in law, is of little relevance. 16. P.W.19 was not only examined by police but also before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Such exercise reinforces my confidence in his version in Court as there is hardly any deviation between his depositions in court and his statement before the learned Magistrate. 17. Reliance has been placed on various authorities on behalf of the appellants in support of their contention that the aforesaid witnesses ought not to be believed as they were belatedly examined. 18. In Balakrushna Swain Vs. State of Orissa, (1971) 3 SCC 192 , the Apex Court did not place reliance on the evidence of a witness belatedly examined as no justifiable reason for delayed examination had been offered and his evidence was found to be false in material particulars. 19. In Alil Mollah & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal, (1996) 5 SCC 369 , the prosecution case founded on the evidence of a solitary witness who did not make statement before Investigating Officer although the latter was camping in the village was not believed. 20. Similarly, in Shahid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 SCC(Cri) 211 apart from unexplained delay in examination of eyewitnesses for three days, their versions were not believed as they were residents of a different town, which was at a distance of 150 km from the place of occurrence. 21. 20. Similarly, in Shahid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 SCC(Cri) 211 apart from unexplained delay in examination of eyewitnesses for three days, their versions were not believed as they were residents of a different town, which was at a distance of 150 km from the place of occurrence. 21. In Hamid Mondal and Others Vs State of West Bengal, (2015) 2 CalCriLR 882 (Cal), a co-ordinate bench of this court did not rely on the evidence of eyewitness as there was unexplained delay in examining them for more than a year. 22. In the present case, the eye-witnesses particularly P.W.18 has given justifiable explanation for his delayed examination during investigation. P.W.19 was not only examined by police but also produced before the Magistrate and his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. These facts not only explain the delay in examination of the witnesses but also lend credence to their versions, one of whom was examined before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. There is hardly any variation in their depositions in court when compared with their earlier statements before the Police/Magistrate. Hence, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid authorities are factually distinguishable from the instant case as the evidence of P.W.s 18 and 19 cannot be thrown out as untrustworthy. 23. Other evidence on record have corroborated the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses P.W.s 18 and 19 with regard to the murder of the victim. 24. P.W. 36 who conducted post mortem over the body of the victim found the following injuries: 1. Heavy sub wound-parietal aspect of neck-cutting spinal cord, muscles, great vessel, muscles at the level of 1" valve length 12" depth 4" breath 4". 2. Left side upper scapular region, deep cut would, length 6' breath 2" depth ". 3. Below "of above wound, deep cut wound, length 3"x ". 4. Right side incised would 5"x "x ". 5. Bullet injury-wound of cuts-right side of the upper para sternel region above the upper round shaped (" diameter) scattered blood surround the would all over the chest (right side at the level of 3rd rib). 25. P.W. 36 deposed that the death was due to cut injuries and bullet injury. He further deposed that the cut injuries could be caused by dagger and bhojali (Mat Exbt.VI and IX) produced before him. 26. Evidence has come on record that Mat exbts. 25. P.W. 36 deposed that the death was due to cut injuries and bullet injury. He further deposed that the cut injuries could be caused by dagger and bhojali (Mat Exbt.VI and IX) produced before him. 26. Evidence has come on record that Mat exbts. VI and IX being dagger and bhojali were recovered by I.O. (P.W. 37) on the showing of Shibu Kahar in the presence of independent witnesses, P.W. 20 and 26. 27. Prosecution has also proved recovery of revolver and cartridge on the leading statement of Goutam Joarder. P.W.37, Investigating Officer proved the statement of Goutam Joarder (Ext.31) leading to the recovery of fire arms during investigation. P.Ws.9 and 12 are independent witnesses to the said seizure. Although evidence of P.W.12 was criticised on the premise that he was a post seizure witness, I find no such infirmity in the evidence of the other witness (P.W. 9) who has corroborated the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 37) relating to the recovery of fire arms. 28. P.W. 36, Post Mortem Doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of the victim had brought out fragment of bullet from the body and handed it along with post mortem blood to Head Constable Pradip Bhowmick (P.W.28). Ballistic expert (P.W. 35) examined the seized revolver and cartridges and the revolver bullet fragment and opined in his report (Ext.27) that the said revolver exbt.-A was in working condition and was designed to fire .308 revolver cartridge. Although definite opinion could not be given whether fragment of .308 revolver bullet recovered from the body of the victim was discharged from exbt.-'A', the said report confirmed that the seized revolver (Ext.A) which was in working condition could be utilized to fire .308 revolver bullet similar to one recovered from the body of the victim. 29. The aforesaid evidence on record, therefore, corroborate the ocular version of P.Ws. 18 and 19 with regard to the manner and course in which the appellants had mercilessly assaulted the victim with sharp cutting weapons and thereafter had shot at him resulting in his death. 30. It has been argued that prior hostile conduct of the appellants towards the victim and his brother, P.W. 1 has not been proved by producing contemporaneous documentary evidence. I am unable to agree with such proposition. 30. It has been argued that prior hostile conduct of the appellants towards the victim and his brother, P.W. 1 has not been proved by producing contemporaneous documentary evidence. I am unable to agree with such proposition. There are ample evidence on record that the appellants are dangerous men with criminal antecedents who were terrorising the fish traders in the locality. P.W.1, brother of the victim and defacto complainant deposed on 29.4.11 the appellants had ransacked their fish stall and stolen money and fishes from the said stall. They lodged compliant to the police and the local traders' association. Biltu was arrested by the police at night and proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him. Representations were also made to the local municipality and police picket was provided to maintain law and order. Finally, on 8.5.2011 his brother was killed by the appellants. He rushed to the spot and lodged first information report. He proved the first information report (Ext.1). He was a signatory to the inquest report. 31. Evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by other witnesses, namely, P.W.15 and P.Ws.22 to 25. 32. P.W.23 stated that trouble started from 2010. The accused persons had given an undertaking in a meeting convened by the Merchant's Association. He was present in the said meeting. A resolution was also prepared in the meeting to which he was a signatory. P.Ws.24 and 25 have corroborated the evidence of P.W.23. 33. Appellants have seriously criticised the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses with regard to bad conduct on the score complaints to the police or merchant's association have not been produced during trial. It has been argued that the undertaking referred to by P.Ws.23 and 24 has also not been produced in court. I am unable to accept such contention. Although P.W.1 is a family member of the victim and may be treated as an interested witness other prosecution witnesses who have deposed with regard to the reign of terror unleashed by the appellants in the fish market by demanding ransom and threatening traders are independent witnesses who are unrelated to the victim. The said witnesses have no axe to grind against the appellants and I see no reason why they would falsely depose against the appellants. 34. The said witnesses have no axe to grind against the appellants and I see no reason why they would falsely depose against the appellants. 34. That apart, documentary evidence with regard to arrest of one of the appellants, namely, Biltu in the night of 29.4.2011 and his prosecution under section 107 Cr.P.C. for criminally intimidating the victim and caused disturbance in the locality had been produced during trial. Prosecution report under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against the said appellant as well as orders passed therein have been produced during trial in support of the oral evidence on record. Hence, I am of the opinion that the oral evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the past unruly conduct of the appellants in the fish market have been fully corroborated by contemporaneous documents relating to prosecution under section 107 Cr.P.C, as aforesaid. 35. With regard appellant Raju Ravi Das alias Shera I note that he has been identified by both eyewitnesses (P.W.s 18 and 19) in Court. There is hardly any deviation in the deposition in Court when compared to their statements to police/Magistrate vis-a-vis the said appellant. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the said appellant that the latter had been named by the witnesses for the first time in Court. On the other hand, Raju Ravi Das @ Shera had been named as one of the assailants by P.W. 19 in his statement before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. (exbt.-15). Hence, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the said appellant that he was named for the first time by the aforesaid witnesses in Court. 36. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants are dangerous and desperate men who were threatening the traders in the fish market particularly P.W. 1 and his elder brother by demanding ransom from them. When the victim protested, his fish stall was ransacked on 29.04.2011 and he was prevented from carrying on business. The matter was reported to the police as well as the traders' association. Appellant Biltu was arrested in the night of 29.04.2011 and proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him for unruly behaviour against the victim. When the victim protested, his fish stall was ransacked on 29.04.2011 and he was prevented from carrying on business. The matter was reported to the police as well as the traders' association. Appellant Biltu was arrested in the night of 29.04.2011 and proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him for unruly behaviour against the victim. Finally, on 08.05.2011 the appellants hired Ambassador car owned by P.W. 33 and came in front of R.S.P. party office near Sadhana More and mercilessly assaulted the victim with sharp cutting weapons and Gautam Joardar fired at him. Due to such assault, the victim died at the spot. Weapons of offence were recovered at the behest of Goutam Joardar and Shibu Kahar. Hence, the guilt of the appellants have been established beyond doubt. 37. The conviction and sentence of the appellants is, accordingly, upheld. 38. The appeals are dismissed. 39. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to forthwith surrender before the trial court and serve out the reminder of their sentences in accordance with law. In the event appellants fail to surrender before the trial court the trial court shall resort to appropriate processes to ensure their attendance and execute the sentences against them in accordance with law. 40. Period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 41. The lower court records be sent down to the learned trial court for necessary action at once. 42. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. I agree - Manojit Mandal, J.