Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 358 (CAL)

Surajit Mondal @ Chhattu v. State Of West Bengal

2020-03-04

SHIVAKANT PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT Shivakant Prasad, J. - This appeal is directed against judgment of conviction dated December 5, 2016 and order of sentence dated December 6, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seventeenth Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 01(02)2015 [corresponding to Sessions Case No. 58(06)2014] arising out of Nodakhali Police Station Case No. 139 dated June 3, 2010 under Sections 341/324/325/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341/307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five days more for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months more for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal is that on June 3, 2010 at about 7-30 p.m. one Parimal Mondal sitting inside Matri Jewellers at Rania School More was chatting with Mintu Das, Mohendra Dolui and Bikash Das. At that time, the accused persons along with 2/3 unknown persons came and drag out Parimal Mondal from the said Jewellery shop holding his shirt''s collar and putting a firm arm on his head. Being beaten by the accused persons, Parimal fell to the ground and tried to run away. Then Surajit Mondal @ Chhottu, being the appellant, with intention to kill Parimal chased him and in front of Sarada Builders, Chhottu shot Parimal on the right side of his chest. As a result, Parimal sustained gun shot injury. For such offence, Nodakhali Police Station Case No. 139 dated June 3, 2010 under Sections 341/324/325/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered for investigation at the instance of the complainant, namely, Pradip Kumar Mondal being the brother of Parimal. 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341/326/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341/326/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge after taking cognizance of the offence transferred the case to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seventeenth Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas, for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 341/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as twelve (12) witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons and also relied on some documents, namely, seizure list dated June 3, 2010, being Exhibit-1; written complaint, being Exhibit-2; statement of the witness Aloke Mondal under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate, being Exhibit-3; seizure list dated June 4, 2010, being Exhibit-4; written complaint lodged by Ira Bakshi with Nodakhali Police Station, being Exhibit-5; injury report of the victim in S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata, being Exhibit 6; formal first information report being Exhibit-7 and hand sketch map with index being Exhibit-8. 5. On completion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but no evidence was adduced on their behalf. 6. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by the impugned judgement and order convicted and sentenced the appellant, namely, Surajit Mondal @ Chhottu, as aforesaid and acquitted the other two accused persons, namely, Arup Kayal and Prasanta Das, under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The injured, Parimal Mondal deposed as prosecution witness no. 3 narrating the prosecution case to the effect that when he was sitting at jewellery shop of Bikash along with another friend, namely, Sintu Das, and chatting with themselves, the appellant along with two other accused persons came to him and dragged him out from the jewellery shop and shot on him by a improvised gun. The injury suffered by the prosecution witness no. 3 has been corroborated in the medical evidence of Dr. Anjali Banerjee, who had examined the injured at S.S.K.M. hospital on June 4, 2010 at 2-20 p.,m., which is evident from Exhibit6. The injury suffered by the prosecution witness no. 3 has been corroborated in the medical evidence of Dr. Anjali Banerjee, who had examined the injured at S.S.K.M. hospital on June 4, 2010 at 2-20 p.,m., which is evident from Exhibit6. A bullet head was seized by the investigating officer on June 4, 2010 at 11-15 a.m. produced by the witness Anup Kumar Mondal as depicted from the seizure list being Exhibit-4. The injury report being Exhibit-6 clearly reveals that the injured, Parimal Mondal had suffered a bullet injury in the right side of his chest by the appellant and the bullet was lodged just deep into the pectoral''s major muscle and the same was removed. 8. The injury report together with the evidence of Dr. Anjali Banerjee, being prosecution witness no. 10 and that of the injured being prosecution witness no. 3 and the evidence adduced by other witnesses produced by the prosecution clearly proves a case of attempt to murder of the victim by the appellant. Therefore, this court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 9. Since this court does not want to interfere with the sentence, which is a term imprisonment for four years, imposed on the appellant, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 10. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive imprisonment imposed on him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, it is recorded that the probable date of release of the appellant would be June 17, 2020 after calculating the under trial set off and remission, which would reveal from the report dated February 27, 2020 of the Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home.. 11. The fine, if deposited by the appellant, shall also be paid to the victim in terms of Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court immediately to ensure necessary compliance of this order. 13. Let a copy of this judgment be also communicated to the Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home for necessary information and doing the needful. 14. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court immediately to ensure necessary compliance of this order. 13. Let a copy of this judgment be also communicated to the Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home for necessary information and doing the needful. 14. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.