Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Brindaban Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 7 March, 2025
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
07.03.2025
Court No.13
Item No.23
AP/sp/pk
CRA 156 of 2008
With
CRAN 2 of 2008 (Old No: CRAN 3178 of 2008)
With
CRAN 4 of 2009 (Old No: CRAN 2863 of 2009)
With
CRAN 5 of 2014 (Old No: CRAN 3831 of 2014)
Brindaban Mondal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Prabir Majumder
Ms. Snehansee Majumder
Mr. Debraj Shit
... for the Appellants.
Mr. Prasun Kr. Dutta, Ld. A.P.P.
Ms. Poulami Bose
...For the State.
1.
The instant appeal is directed against a judgement
and/or order of conviction dated 28th January, 2008 and 29th
January, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd
Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Trial No.2(3)92
arising out of Sessions Case No.33(3)89. The appellants were
convicted under Sections 147/148/149/302 of the Indian
Penal Code. Out of five appellants three were died. The
surviving appellants are Brindaban Mondal, appellant No.1
and Panchu Gopal Mondal @ Panchu Mondal, appellant No.3.
2. This Court has sought a report from the Dum Dum
Central Correctional Home. It appears from the report that
Prasanna Mondal @ Prasun Mondal died on 31st October, 2020
inside the Dum Dum Correctional Home Hospital. Pratul
2
Mondal expired on 16th May, 2017 at R.G. Kar Medical College
and Hospital.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant
Jalil Mondal, PW-1, was at a market on 3rd October, 1986
around 10:10 am. He came to know from someone that the
accused persons were trying to cultivate and steal paddy on a
land measuring about 1 Bigha. PW-1 owned 1 Bigha 56
Chittak of land under Dag No.3705 and 1804 in Mouza-
Bagangram under Bongaon Police Station, North 24-Parganas.
He rushed to his field from the market, along with deceased
Unus Ali and other persons.
4. The accused persons, namely, Sudhir Mondal, Manik
Mondal, Baka Mondal, Brindaban Mondal, Pratul Mondal and
Panchu Mondal, chased to attack PW-1, Jalil Mondal and Unus
Mondal, with „Ballam‟ (spear ), a Ramdao (large Chopper) and
sticks and sickles in their hands.
5. PW-1 and Unus started to run away to save themselves.
Unus who was stout and heavy, slipped and fell in the paddy
field that had 1 ½ feet of water. The accused Pratul Mondal
assaulted Unus with a spear and pierced his stomach. The
other accused, namely, Panchu Mondal and Prasanna @
Prasun Mondal tried to draw out his spear from the body of the
deceased by pressing their legs on his chest.
6. After the spear was taken out, Unus fell on the paddy
field. The accused Brindaban Mondal thereafter assaulted
3
Unus with a Ramdao. Dulal Mondal assaulted Unus with a
sickle. When a number of local villagers gathered at the place
of occurrence, the accused persons fled away. Unus was taken
to a local hospital by locals, where he died.
7. In the meanwhile, PW-1, Jalil Mondal finding the
deceased seriously injured, ran away. He is stated to have
thereafter taken a motorcycle from a local villager, namely,
Rabindranath Adhikari, a local UpaPradhan, and had reached
Bongaon Police Station to lodge the complaint in question.
8. The Investigation was started. The Inquest was
performed on the victim, and later, the postmortem was
performed. The postmortem report indicated the following
injuries:-
“1) Right elbow – incised wound 6″ x 4” into skin deep.
2) Perforated wound above ambilicus 3″ x 2″ x
abdomen deep all vessels, viscera at the side perforated
and lacerated.
3. Incised wound on the upper part of abdomen on
the left auxiliary line below chest wall. 9″ x 3″ continued
from abdomen.
4. Incised wound on the right chest auxiliary line 6″ x
2″ and 10th rib right side congested.
5. Right kidney incised wound 3″ x 2″ with dark
clotted blood forasic cavity present anti-mortem clods with
infiltration of blood are surrounding the would present.
Right lung – lower and perforated 2″ x half inch.
Death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting
from the aforesaid injuries which were anti-mortem and
homicidal in nature. This is the P.M. report (Exbt. 7)
bearing the signature of doctor (Exbt. 7/1) of S.R.
Chakraborty. Out of the aforesaid injuries, Injury No. 2, 3,
4
4 and 5 are sufficient to cause death, because those
injuries inflicted on the vital part of the body. The
perforated injury might have been caused sharp pointed
weapon. Injury No. 2 and 3, 4 and 5 might have been
caused by a sharp cutting weapon. The perforated would
appearing in serial No. 2 might have been caused by this
type of phala (ballam)”
9. After seizure of weapons, wearing apparels of the
deceased, the charge sheet was submitted in May, 1987 under
Sections 147/148/326/304/379/411 of the IPC against the
appellants and Sudhir Mondal. Charges were framed when the
trial commenced.
10. PW-1, Jalil Mondal, was the complainant. He stated that
on the day of Mahalaya in the year 1986 in the month of Ashin,
his neighbor, one Unus was murdered. He narrated the
incident as indicated in the complaint. He may not have
actually seen the assault on the victim. He further stated that
while running away had turned back and found, Pratul and
Prasun and Panchu trying to remove the spear from the body
of Unus. His evidence that Brindaban Mondal assaulted Unus
with a Ramdao and Dulal assaulted the victim with a sickle,
cannot be taken on face value, since he was running away from
the place of occurrence. He identified the victim and narrated
the entire incident to the police. He reiterated the incident as
described hereinabove even in cross-examination. He stated
that the accused persons belonging to a rival political party, as
opposed to the victim and the witnesses.
11. PW-2, Nemai Kr. Mondal and PW-3, Sri Nilratan Roy are
the seizure witnesses of weapons, clothes and seized paddy.
5
12. PW-5, Rabiul Hossain Mondal is an eye-witness. He
deposed and identified all the accused persons on the dock. He
was standing on the side of the pathway in front of the house
of PW-1 and close to the house of Earali Mondal, PW-7. He saw
the entire incident. He deposed that he saw the accused
persons charging to attack PW-1 and the deceased.
13. PW-5 deposed that the accused Dulal Mondal was able
to intercept the deceased. Pratul, Prasun and Panchu
assaulted the victim with a spear. They also drew out the spear
from the body of the deceased. Dulal Mondal thereafter
assaulted the deceased with a sickle and Brindaban Mondal
assaulted him with a Ramdao. When the deceased fell in the
water-filled paddy field, and villagers started gathering, the
accused ran away. His evidence is clear and explicit. His
evidence could not be shaken in cross-examination. On the
contrary, his evidence was strengthen by the nature of cross-
examination conducted by the appellants.
14. PW-7, Earali Mondal, another eye-witness. He knew the
deceased and the accused persons. He did not know PW-1. He
was not in talking terms with him. On the date of occurrence,
he was preparing to go to work when he heard alarms and
shouting outside his house. He came out of the house and
found the accused Pratul assaulting the victim with a spear.
Panchu Mondal, Pratul and Prasanna tried to draw out the
spear from the body of the victim.
6
15. PW-7 deposed that even after the victim fell down,
Brindaban Mondal assaulted the victim with a Ramdao and
Dulal assaulted him with a sickle. His evidence is clear and
was not was not shaken in cross-examination. He stated in
cross-examination that he was the first person to reach the
place of occurrence after the incident. The victim was lifted
from the water in presence of PW-7. He had witnessed the
entire incident and also saw the victim being carried to a local
hospital. He found the spear in the hands of one of the accused
persons.
16. PW-8, Kousar Ali Molla, is the third eye-witness and
reiterated the entire incident. His land was adjacent to the land
of PW-1, Jalil Mondal. He saw the accused persons while he
was going to his own field. He was told by the accused not to
enter the land and was returning home thereafter. From his
house he saw PW-1 and the deceased going towards their fields
and the accused chasing them. He also saw the victim fall
down in the paddy field and Dulal Mondal assaulting him with
a Ramdao. He identified Dulal Mondal, Prasanna and Panchu
Mondal and stated that he had seen them assaulting the victim
with a spear in the abdomen of the deceased. Brindaban
Mondal thereafter assaulted the victim with a Ramdao. He
stated that he heard the accused persons stating that the
victim should be finished.
7
17. PW-7 further deposed that when local people assembled
at the place of occurrence, the accused fled away. He saw the
accused being removed from the place of occurrence to a
hospital. He also stated that the accused could not attack PW-
1 as he had fled away and took shelter near a house. The
police made seizure of paddy and other articles in his presence.
18. In course of deposition, Sudhir Mondal, father of Prasun
Mondal, Pratul Mondal and Panchu Mondal had died due to
natural causes. PW-8 not only described the entire incident
which he saw but also gave a detailed description in cross-
examination of the incident, he named the persons who arrived
at the place of occurrence after the incident. He described the
place of occurrence and its surrounding areas in great detail in
cross-examination.
19. The evidence of PW-10, Illahi Box Dafadar, is not reliable
since he admitted in cross-examination that his eye sight was
defective.
20. PW-12 identified the post mortem report of Dr. S.R.
Chakraborty, who has died during the Trial.
21. PW-13 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has
narrated the steps taken in the investigation. He has stated
that he reached the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch
map, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased and some
weapons used by the accused persons. He conducted inquest
on the deceased and sent the body for post mortem. He
8received the post mortem report. He was cross-examined by the
accused. He also confirmed having recorded the statement
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of PW-2,
PW-5 and several other witnesses. The appellants did not bring
any witness.
22. The accused persons were examined under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C. and were confronted with all the incriminating
circumstances against them. The accused denied knowledge of
several suggestions and also stated as false in answer to some
of them.
23. The Trial Judge has carefully analyzed the entire
evidence on record. The Trial Judge found that minor
discrepancies in the evidence between the witnesses to the
prosecution cannot be fatal to its case. This Court is of the
view that it is only when the witnesses for the prosecution,
uniformly and without any discrepancy, depose in favour of the
prosecution, one could suspect their evidence. Minor
discrepancies are always possible between witnesses who
depose bona fide in a trial. The prosecution witnesses did not
have any enmity with the accused persons. No such enmity
has come on record.
24. The evidence of PW-1 was outside the scope of the FIR
and an exaggeration thereof. Counsel for the appellants would
argue that no credence should, therefore, be given to the
evidence of PW-1. This Court, however, notes that any FIR is
9not an encyclopedia. The case of the prosecution is not only
proved by the evidence of PW-1 for that the eye witness
evidence of PW-5, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-10. Injuries on the
victim inflicted by the appellants are corroborated with the post
mortem report.
25. The Trial Court also found in the argument of the
defence that the body of the deceased was not identified to be
unsustainable since the post mortem report of the original
Doctor together with inquest report have duly confirmed the
identity of the victim.
26. The Trial Court also rejected the arguments that the FIR
was pre-dated. The delay in lodging the FIR was rejected on the
ground that the witnesses were not cross-examined by the
defence on the said issue. The Court found that the statements
of the eyewitnesses are wholly reliable.
27. In so far as the discrepancies and the alleged
exaggeration in the evidence of PW-1, reference was made by
the Trial Court to the decision in the case of Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai -Vs. – The State of Gujarat reported in
(1983) 3 SCC 217 particularly para 5 thereof on the minor
discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses.
28. After dealing with all the arguments of the appellants,
the Court found the appellants guilty of offence punishable
under Sections 147/148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellants have been sentenced for life imprisonment and
10
to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine,
the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
29. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings of
the learned Trial Judge.
30. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal fails and
is hereby dismissed. Consequently, all connected pending
applications, if any, are also dismissed.
31. Let the Trial Court Records and a copy of the judgement
be sent back to the court below.
32. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link