Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 483 (CAL)

Ipi Bibi v. State of West Bengal

2019-04-11

SHIVAKANT PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : Shivakant Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.05.2017 and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Krishnanagar, District Nadia in connection with sessions Case No. 41 (II) 2006 corresponding to sessions trial No. 01 (June) 2015 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No. 417/2005 dated 24.12.2005 under Section 325/34 and Section 308 of Indian Penal Code, thereby convicting the appellants for the commission of offence punishable under section 304 part II and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and thus sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as fine in default six months rigorous imprisonment each against the appellants. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the defacto complainant, Jaheda Bibi, wife of Sanwar Rahaman of Chandsarak Fakirpara, Joynal Abedin Road under Police Station Kotwali lodged a First Information Report (in short "FIR") on 24.12.2005 at Kotwali Police Station to the effect that on 08.12.2005 at about 12.00 noon a quarrel took place between her husband Sanwar Rahaman with Ohidar Rahaman and his wife Rajia Bibi over the dispute regarding family property. On that very day at about 7.00 P.M. Nuri Bibi and Ipi Bibi of Masjidpara, called her husband near the mosque of Masjidpara and there Chhoto Khoka Sk., Ohidar Rahaman, Rajia Bibi and Ipi Bibi assaulted her husband. On the next morning her husband was admitted to hospital and on 28.12.2005 Sanwar Rohaman died. Hence, the prosecution case. 3. On receiving the FIR being Kotwali Police Station Case No. 417/2005 dated 24.12.2005 under Section 325/34 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, the Investigating Officer investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet bearing no. 125/2006 dated 24.06.2006 under Sections 325/308/34 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code against five accused persons. 4. The case was committed to the Court of sessions and in turn transferred to Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Krishnanagar, Nadia for trial after cognizance taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned trial court after having framed the charge under Sections 325/308/34 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 10.01.2017 held the trial by examining as many as 16 witnesses to bring home the charges levelled against the accused persons since the accused persons abjured the guilt. 6. Learned trial court after having framed the charge under Sections 325/308/34 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 10.01.2017 held the trial by examining as many as 16 witnesses to bring home the charges levelled against the accused persons since the accused persons abjured the guilt. 6. After closure of the evidence the appellant accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which each of them declined to adduce any evidence. 7. The defence is one of the denial of charges levelled against the accused persons, appellants herein which would emerge from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the prosecution and the defence the learned trial court held the appellants guilty of the charges punishable under Section 304 Part-II and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted under the provisions of Section 325(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after reflection in segregation on the subsequent day on 18.05.2017, the appellants were sentenced after hearing them on the question of sentence, to suffer to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default to serve rigorous imprisonment for six months for the said charge under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with further direction that pre trial detention undergone by each of the appellants be set off from their substantive period of sentence under the provision of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Now the point for decision is as to whether the judgment impugned is tenable in law and in fact and as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate charges against the accused persons, appellants herein beyond the reasonable doubt and whether the learned judge while holding them guilty of the said charges has committed error in law and in fact. 10. Mr. Sudipta Moitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset points out that the appellants being the convicted accused persons are four in number but initially five accused persons were facing trial whereas one accused person Nuri Bibi died during trial and case against her was filed for ever. It is also pointed out that all the accused persons happened to be close relatives of the deceased and the defacto complainant PW-1. 11. It is also pointed out that all the accused persons happened to be close relatives of the deceased and the defacto complainant PW-1. 11. Date of occurrence as reflected from the formal FIR and the written complaint is on 08.12.2005 at about 07.30 P.M. The place of occurrence shown in the formal FIR is near mosque where allegedly the deceased, Sanowar Rahaman @ Salim was called upon by Nuri Bibi. It is alleged that the deceased was beaten by the accused persons/appellants herein inflicting injury on his head as a result he expired on 28.12.2005. Mr. Moitra, urges that the deceased survived for 20 days after perpetrated crime on him. Secondly it is submitted that FIR was lodged on 24.12.2005 whereas the incident alleged is on 08.12.2005. It is pointed out that there is no cogent explanation as to delay in lodging the FIR. That apart, the FIR was forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar, Nadia on 28.12.2005. So it is belated action taken on the part of the prosecution agency which shows that the FIR lodged against the appellants is embellished one with the concocted facts in order to see that the appellants are convicted and sentenced. It is submitted by Rana Mukherjee appearing for the State respondent that the formal FIR, Exhibit-3 reveals that delay in reporting the information about the incident by complainant/ informant was due to engagement of the complainant for treatment of her husband. It appears from the written FIR dated 24.12.2005 addressed to Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Nadia that this FIR was received by the police station on 24.12.2005 and accordingly Kotwali Police Station Case No. 417 dated 24.12.2005 under Section 325/34/308 of the Indian Penal Code was started. The FIR appears to have been seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar, Nadia on 28.12.2005 but the Investigating Officer, PW-16 has not put an explanation as to why this FIR was forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after four days even after receipt of the FIR to the concerned Police Station. 12. The FIR appears to have been seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar, Nadia on 28.12.2005 but the Investigating Officer, PW-16 has not put an explanation as to why this FIR was forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after four days even after receipt of the FIR to the concerned Police Station. 12. It would appear from the written FIR, Exhibit-1 that Jaheda Bibi, wife of Sanwar Rahaman, since deceased lodged the FIR on allegation that on 08.12.2005 at 12.00 noon there had been an altercation between her husband and Ohidar Rahaman and his wife Rajia Bibi over the dispute of family property and on the very day at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening Nuri Bibi and Ipi Bibi of Masjidpara asked her husband near mosque at Chandsarak Fakirpara. Chhoto Khoka Sk., Ohidar Rahaman, Rajia Bibi and Ipi Bibi assaulted her husband on his head and several parts of his body with bamboo stick and due to such assault, her husband sustained severe bleeding injury. In such a condition the complainant, PW-1 took her husband to Kotwali Police Station and diarized the incident on the following morning and she got her husband admitted at Saktinagar Hospital for treatment. As the condition of her husband deteriorated after treatment at the said Hospital, the doctor referred him to NRS Hospital but on account of non-availability of seat there, she got her husband admitted to National Medical College and Hospital for treatment. Since there was no arrangement for treatment or operation of brain injury he was admitted at Iqbalpur Netaji Nursing Home at Kolkata where he was undergoing treatment. According to the FIR and the statement of Jahida Bibi, her husband physical condition was awful and was in coma. It is specifically noted in the complaint that the GD which was lodged by PW-1 is GD No. 525 dated 08.12.2005 with Kotwali Police Station. At this juncture Mr. Moitra submits that when the GD entry was registered on 08.12.2005 on the date of occurrence alleging cognizable offence, there was no reason why the police station kept the GD in abeyance without any action and investigation. At this juncture Mr. Moitra submits that when the GD entry was registered on 08.12.2005 on the date of occurrence alleging cognizable offence, there was no reason why the police station kept the GD in abeyance without any action and investigation. It was only undertaken after the receipt of a belated written complaint on 24.12.2005, that too, being forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate four days thereafter on 28.12.2005 to argue that such conduct of the prosecution and its witnesses clearly reveals that there has been embellished FIR. It is also submitted by Mr. Moitra that withholding of GD Entry before the trial by prosecution also cast serious doubt in the prosecution case. 13. Now, my attention is invited to evidence of doctor Ratul Gupta, PW-9 who was MD-Surgeon attached to District Hospital, Nadia, Krishnanagar on 09.12.2005, on which day, he examined Sanowar Rahaman under his care at male surgical ward with registration no. 44527, with the history of one day assault. According to this doctor the said patient was assaulted on 08.12.2005 at 06.30 P.M. with fists by some boys of Masjidpara but the patient had no history of unconsciousness except the history of vomiting 3/4 times. The patient had also complained of neck pain and vertigo. So, Mr. Moitra argues that when the patient was conscious, what prevented him from disclosing the names of the assailants who had perpetrated crime of assault on him. After examination, the doctor found no external injury except abrasion on inner aspect of left side of both lips. So the patient was advised for C.T. Scan and X-ray of cervical spine and the C.T. Scan was done on the same day which showed much intra cerebral haematoma at right occipital parietal scalp area extending to the lateral ventricle. Then, he was referred to N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata on the same day at about 11.25 P.M. although the doctor had referred the case at 08.30 P.M. on the same date. Thus, PW-9 has proved the injury report along with his prescription and bed head ticket comprising 5 pages marked as exhibit 2 collectively which reflect the state of affair of the patient suffered by him. Thus, PW-9 has proved the injury report along with his prescription and bed head ticket comprising 5 pages marked as exhibit 2 collectively which reflect the state of affair of the patient suffered by him. It is evident therefrom that the patient was not in coma and was not at all unconscious rather he was conscious and complained to the doctor about the history of assault caused to him by some local boys of Masjidpara. During cross-examination by the defence the doctor has opined that such type of injury is possible if somebody being intoxicated falls on rock or hard substance forcefully. 14. My attention is also invited to the evidence of Dr. Jamaluddin Sham, PW-11 of Netaji Nursing Home at Kidderpore. According to him, on 13.12.2005 said Sanowar Rahaman, deceased was admitted in his Nursing home and the history of assault as stated by the patient party was physical assault with heavy object by relatives over a family dispute, as a result, he sustained severe head injury with loss of consciousness. This statement might have been made by the PW-1, wife of the patient Sanowar Rahaman. This piece of evidence is not supported by medical report or treatment sheet by Dr. Sham, PW-11 of Netaji Nursing Home, Khiderpore and his statement on oath is in conflict with that of the evidence of Dr. Gupta PW-9 who for the first time attended to the patient when he was brought before him. As I have observed from his evidence and the reports under exhibits that the patient was conscious and was able to make statement, it might be so, that at the time when he was admitted in the said Nursing home, the patient was in coma or in unconscious state of mind. But to substantiate the fact, there is no documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is revealed from the evidence of PW-11 that history of assault as stated was that by the patient party with regard to the assault committed by relatives without the disclosure of particular names of the relatives as the assailants as to who really assaulted the deceased. Though the written complaint, Exhibit-1 would reveal the names of the assailants as per the name allegedly given in the GD Entry but the same was never produced by the prosecution to show existence of such GDE before the court in corroboration of the belated FIR. 15. Though the written complaint, Exhibit-1 would reveal the names of the assailants as per the name allegedly given in the GD Entry but the same was never produced by the prosecution to show existence of such GDE before the court in corroboration of the belated FIR. 15. It is true a principle of law that an FIR is not an encyclopedia to narrate and disclose all minor details of the incident and it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is used to contradict or corroborate the fact disclosed in the FIR. Since the information as allegedly given by the FIR maker narrating the incident by the injured himself alleging crime by particular persons and such incident of cognizable offence was informed to the local P.S. diarized in the GDE Book, what prevented the local P.S. in not starting a specific case against the named accused persons for investigation inasmuch as some information of crime was given to the police with the object of setting the police into motion for investigation. Although, a First Information Report need not contain the minor details as to how the offence has been committed nor it is necessary to give the names of the offenders or the witnesses but when the alleged GDE contained the names of the assailants, it was desired to start case by the police based on the information in the GDE. Therefore, I do find that there appears a contradiction in the FIR which is not in tune with the GD Entry as mentioned for not being produced before the learned Trial Court since, there is every scope to take the presumption against the prosecution case because the GDE has been suppressed. This court finds that Sanowar Rahaman, the injured was taken to hospital by his wife, PW-1 Jaheda Bibi but she did not even disclose the names of those relatives as to who had assaulted the injured to the attending doctor at the earliest point of time. 16. In this case evidence of Jaheda Bibi PW-1, Jahanabi Sk. This court finds that Sanowar Rahaman, the injured was taken to hospital by his wife, PW-1 Jaheda Bibi but she did not even disclose the names of those relatives as to who had assaulted the injured to the attending doctor at the earliest point of time. 16. In this case evidence of Jaheda Bibi PW-1, Jahanabi Sk. PW-2 may be categorized as hearsay evidence because PW-1 herself has stated that she was informed by her husband deceased as to who had assaulted him and she deposed that the accused persons, namely, Nuri Bibi, Ipi Bibi, Chhoto Khoka Sk., Ohidar Rahaman and Rajia Bibi have assaulted her husband on his head and other parts of his body with the help of lathi and other instruments which she heard from her husband. But this court fails to understand as to why PW-1 or her husband did not disclose the names of the assailants in the FIR when they reported the matter on 08.12.2005 to the Police station. Moreover, when the deceased husband was taken for treatment to Dr. Ratul Gupta, PW-9 the Medical Officer Surgeon, nothing was revealed to him about the history of assault by the accused persons appellant herein. Dr. Gupta, PW-9 testified the fact that when the patient was brought to him for treatment, patient was conscious and he had disclosed the history of vomiting 3/4 times and complained of neck pain and vertigo but none of them revealed the names of the appellants/accused persons as the persons having assaulted the patient on his head or any part of his body by lathi or other instrument. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 does not find corroboration by medical reports and the information to the police station as per the FIR because, the names of assailants are given after thoughts after long lapse of time, particularly, when the first information vide GDE not produced and proved by the prosecution. 17. Learned advocate for the petitioner to fortify his argument relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2011) 12 SCC 408 which reads thus:- "14. The courts below have, however, drawn a presumption against the accused primarily on the plea hat they had not informed the parents of the deceased hat she had died and had hurriedly cremated her dead body. The courts below have, however, drawn a presumption against the accused primarily on the plea hat they had not informed the parents of the deceased hat she had died and had hurriedly cremated her dead body. We further see from the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 that in their statements recorded in court they did say that they had received no information about the death on which they had been confronted with their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they had stated that they had indeed been present when the cremation had taken place. In order to explain this contradiction both these witnesses disowned their Section 161 statements and testified that they had not made any statement to the police. These statements are, however, falsified by the evidence of PW-4, ASI Gurmel Singh, the police officer concerned, who deposed that the police statements had been recorded by him as per the dictates of the two witnesses. 15. In the alternative, even assuming that no statements of PWs. 2 and 3 had been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. this factor destroys the substratum of the prosecution story in a far greater measure as sit must then be taken that their statements were being recorded for the first time in court which would rob them of much of their evidentiary value. In this case, we find that the two witnesses are none other than the brother and the father of the deceased." 18. PW-12, Azad Rahaman, younger brother of Sanwar Rahaman and brother-in-law of PW-1 deposed during examination-in-chief that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing shouting and found his elder brother being assaulted by persons namely, Choto Khoka, Ipi Bibi and Nuri Bibi by kicks, fist and blows. He further stated that Razia Bibi, Widha Rahaman were also present at that time and they were also assaulted by lathi. PW-12, tried to save his elder brother. According to him the local people had also appeared at the place of occurrence on hearing shouting and they have seen the incident. 19. PW-7 has deposed that he heard about the incident from Aizul and Akkash that accused persons assaulted Sanwar @ Salim by lathi and blows resulting which he fell on the ground. Said injured came to his house and was admitted in hospital later on. 19. PW-7 has deposed that he heard about the incident from Aizul and Akkash that accused persons assaulted Sanwar @ Salim by lathi and blows resulting which he fell on the ground. Said injured came to his house and was admitted in hospital later on. PW-7 is a rickshaw puller who was examined by I.O. at P.S. after 15-16 days from the date of incident. If the said witness was available in the village, there is no justification for the I.O. to examine him 15-16 days after the incident. Such conduct of I.O. does cast a doubt in the prosecution case, apart from the witness being a hearsay witness without corroboration from the persons, he heard about the incident. As I have noted that PW-2 is categorised as a hearsay witness as he also heard about the incident from Aizul Sk. And Akkash Ali Sk. That the accused persons namely, Choto Khoka, Ipi Bibi and Nuri Bibi assaulted Sanwar by fist and blows and by lathi but PW-2 did not go to P.S. to inform about the incident or to anywhere or to anybody. 20. I find from the cross-examination of PW-12 that he had informed about the incident at about 10 p.m. on December 8, 2005 to the police station when Sanwar Rahaman the injured and his Boudi PW-1 also accompanied him. According to him police wrote down the statement what was stated before the police which was signed by Sanwar Rahaman. Thereafter, again on December 24, 2005 the written complaint was filed at about 6.30/7 p.m. by his Boudi PW-1 as it was informed by the Boudi to the police station. 21. The question raised is as to what was the information given to the police station on December 8, 2005 though there is a reference of GD Entry No. 1450 dated December 8, 2005 at about 17.45 hours but the information vide said GDE was not worked out by the police station. 22. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that the suppression of that GD by the prosecution before the learned trial Court is very serious and it may so happen that the GDE did not disclose any cognizable offence. 22. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that the suppression of that GD by the prosecution before the learned trial Court is very serious and it may so happen that the GDE did not disclose any cognizable offence. That apart, the presumption against the prosecution has to be taken for non disclosure and non production of the GD entry during trial to reveal as to what was noted and whether there was disclosure of fact of assault by the appellants/accused persons. As such, the claim of PW-12 in his deposition as eyewitness to the occurrence cannot be accepted as his evidence does not instill the confidence in judicial mind of the Court to find corroboration with prosecution case. 23. PW-3 was declared hostile as he deposed that he has no knowledge about the incident save and except having heard about the golmal in the local area. PW-4 Nafi Sk. was also declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not know about the incident. 24. According to PW-5, Akkash Ali Sk. he heard that Nuri Bibi was telling to Salim as to whether he was a dog. Salim objected to such words. Nuri Bibi then told him, a dog bites below the knee, but you have bitten above the knee. There was quarrel in between them. PW5, deposed that according to Nuri Bibi her son Choto Khoka pushed Salim and Salim fell down then she asked some little boys at the place of occurrence "What was the matter?" and they told her that Salim was bitten and he found him in sitting posture in the shop of Nuri Bibi. She found Salim with hands in his mouth facing opposite the tea stall of Nuri Bibi. Then he found some blood mixed with water which he poured from his mouth. She advised the people assembled there to move him to hospital. This fact does not find corroboration of the prosecution case since said Nuri Bibi has not been examined as a prosecution witness in corroboration in prosecution case rather she has been arrayed as an accused. In cross-examination PW-5 deposed in crystal term that he has not seen the incident. 25. This fact does not find corroboration of the prosecution case since said Nuri Bibi has not been examined as a prosecution witness in corroboration in prosecution case rather she has been arrayed as an accused. In cross-examination PW-5 deposed in crystal term that he has not seen the incident. 25. According to PW-6 Arajul Sk, was standing in front of club at about 7 p.m. when Sanwar @ Salim was going to the tea stall of Nuri Bibi, the mother of Choto Khoka and she asked Salim "Are you a dog? A dog bites a man below the knee, but you have bitten about the knee." There was quarrel among them. Accused Choto Khoka then delivered a blow on the face of Salim as a result, Salim fell down. There was a crowd and he found that Salim was lying on the ground and he ran away from the place of occurrence. According to him Kapiluddin lifted Salim from the ground and took him to the tea stall of Nuri Bibi and sat him there. Salim was bleeding and Kapiluddin gave him some water. Then, Salim went to his house. It is to be noted that said Kapiluddin is not a witness for the prosecution, not even cited as a CS witness. In cross-examination PW-6 has deposed that he is a driver of a truck and he had seen 30/40 persons at the place of occurrence when he reached there. So obviously, he might not have seen the incident taking place, although, he said that he informed the police about the incident but he cannot remember when he informed the police. His evidence is in variance in his cross examination when he said that there was no bleeding from the mouth of Salim. 26. PW-7 Nurnabi Sk heard about the incident from Aizul and Akkash in proof of the fact that accused persons, in the evening on the date of the incident had assaulted Sanwar @ Salim by lathi blows as a result he fell down on the ground. According to PW-7 he was examined by the police after 15/16 days from the date of incident. Evidence of PW-7 appears to be hearsay. Therefore, his statement on oath is not creditworthy. 27. PW-8 Mohit Sk. According to PW-7 he was examined by the police after 15/16 days from the date of incident. Evidence of PW-7 appears to be hearsay. Therefore, his statement on oath is not creditworthy. 27. PW-8 Mohit Sk. a trolly puller deposed that by his trolly he took Salim to Shakatinagar Hospital as he was suffering from pain in his head but he has no personal knowledge about the incident. 28. PW-13 Chandra Sekhar Bhattacharya, Sub-Inspector of Nabadwip Police Station after having received a written complaint from one Jaheda Bibi started Kotwali Police Station Case No. 417 of 2005 dated December 24, 2005 under Sections 325/308/34 IPC and proved his endorsement on the margin of the FIR, Ext.1/2 and the formal FIR drawn and signed by him, Ext.3. 29. Evidence of PW-14 Md. Badal Sk. is of no help to the prosecution as he does not know even the deceased Sanwar or anything about the facts of the case. 30. PW-15 Uma Prasanya Ghosal is an Autopsy surgeon who has proved the Post-Mortem report Ext.2. According to him, the injury found on the person of the deceased may be caused on fall on a hard substance. Therefore, the Post-Mortem report Ext.2 and Autopsy Surgeon's opinion thereof does not even corroborate the prosecution case of assault on the head of the deceased. 31. PW-16 Animesh Bhattacharjee, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, collected evidence and submitted chargesheet against the accused persons/appellants. According to him, he examined the PW-3 who has been declared hostile. Investigating Officer has deposed that he did not examine Azad Rahaman PW-14 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-16 has also not examined the persons namely, Golam Rasul Sheikh, Dilip Ghosh and Jakat Ali Sheikh whose houses were situated in juxtaposition of the place of occurrence as per the sketch map of the P.O. with the explanatory index. I.O. did not even collect extract copy of Kotwali Police Station G.D. No. 525 dated December 8,2005 as referred in the written complaint and no step was also taken to produce the G.D. No. 1450 dated December 12, 2005. The Investigating Officer has also not collected the documents in connection with the case from Ekbalpur Police Station though he deposed that the death of Sanwar Rahaman was unnatural death as per the Ekbalpur Police Station G.D. reference. The Investigating Officer has also not collected the documents in connection with the case from Ekbalpur Police Station though he deposed that the death of Sanwar Rahaman was unnatural death as per the Ekbalpur Police Station G.D. reference. It is also evident from the evidence of I.O. that Ajad Rahman was not examined by him during investigation and his statement was not recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. I am of the view that evidence of the police officer being the Investigating Officer cannot be regarded as a little value in respect of his statement. Since PW-12 was not examined by Investigating Officer no amount of evidence of PW-12 can be relied in support of the prosecution case. 32. There are serious contradictions, though contradiction of minor nature may not be regarded as very material or positive proof and whole of the prosecution case may not be thrown out on that ground alone, nevertheless I find on appraisal of the evidence that this serious contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses in so far as the allegations against the accused persons/appellants are concerned inasmuch as identity of the accused persons perpetrating the crime is in serious doubt in view of the suppression of the contents in G.D. Entry dated 08.12.2005 disclosing the names of the accused persons, insomuch so, that at earliest point of time when the injured was taken to the hospital in the emergency, history of assault disclose to the attending doctor was by some para boys of Masjid Para. 33. In the context of the discussion above on analytically assessing the evidence I am of the view and accordingly hold that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons/appellants herein entitling them to an order of acquittal. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Krishnagar, District-Nadia in Sessions Case No. 41(II) of 2006 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 01(June) 2015 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No. 417 of 2005 dated December 24, 2005 under Sections 325/34 and 308 IPC is hereby set aside on finding the accused persons/appellants herein not guilty of the charges thereof and are acquitted by setting them at liberty on being discharged from their respective bail bonds. 34. 34. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent down to the learned Court below for necessary note in the sessions trial register and for doing the needful. 35. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.