Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Sonu @ Sandrey Alam @ Sonu Ansari vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 July, 2025
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
CRA 436 of 2015
With
CRAN 2 of 2016 (Old CRAN 195 of 2016)
With
CRAN 3 of 2018 (Old CRAN 203 of 2018)
Md. Sonu @ Sandrey Alam @ Sonu Ansari
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
With
CRA 443 of 2015
With
CRAN 1 of 2015 (Old CRAN 2957 of 2015)
Ali Asgar @ Lasgari
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
Before: The Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj
&
The Hon'ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
For the Appellants : Mr. Fazlur Rahman, Adv.
Md. Babul Hussain, Adv.
Ms. Mousumi Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Mihinuri Hossain, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. APP
Mr. Samarjit Balial, Adv.
CAV On : 02.07.2025
Judgment On : 17.07.2025
2
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :-
1.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction dated 29.06.2015 and 30.06.2015 passed by the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge (In-Charge), Fast Track, 4th Court, (Barrackpore)
in Sessions Trial No. 2(2) of 2010 [arising out of Sessions Case No. 413 of
2009] convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, the instant criminal appeal has been preferred on the grounds, inter
alia, that the Learned Trial Judge did not consider the evidence on record in
its proper perspective and further the learned Trial Judge did not consider
the fact that though there was no whisper in the FIR and inquest report
regarding dying declaration of the victim, the Learned Judge has relied upon
an afterthought oral dying declaration of the victim beyond authority. The
PW1, the defacto-complainant is an interested witness and he was in
custody in connection with another case for murdering one Mahendra
Chowdhury and, therefore, reliance upon the evidence of PW1 by the
Learned Trial Judge, is a misplaced one. The deposition of PW2, an alleged
eye witness, cannot be relied upon in view of contradiction taken in the
deposition of the investigating officer. Though there was sufficient departure
from the initial case in the FIR and subsequent material improvement in the
prosecution case, the Learned Trial Judge did not consider the anomalies.
There are sufficient vital witnesses who ought to have been examined but
actually they were kept outside the process of investigation and trial of the
case. Therefore, for non-production of such vital witnesses, adverse
3
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
presumption is to be drawn against the prosecution case. There are multiple
laches in investigation and further, there are ample deficiencies in the
prosecution case and, therefore, the judgment and order of conviction as
aforesaid is liable to be set aside. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the
appellants has further submitted that PW3 Babujan Ansari who allegedly
took the victim with bleeding injuries to hospital was unable to show that
his wearing apparels were blood stained at the relevant time. Moreover, the
concerned auto driver in whose auto the victim was allegedly taken to
hospital was not examined. The doctor who examined the victim first was
also not called on as a witness.
2. The learned counsel Mr. Rahman has also submitted that recovery of
the offending weapon is doubtful. No local persons were made seizure list
witnesses at the time of recovery of such offending instruments. The
learned counsel has also submitted that from the materials on record, it is
found that such alleged offending weapon was recovered from places
accessible to the general public and, therefore, in view of the settled judicial
decisions of the Apex Court such recovery in presence of the witnesses who
are close to the de-facto complainant cannot be relied upon. Further
recovery of weapons from a public place casts a serious doubt over the
process of such recovery. In support of his contention Mr. Rahaman has
referred to (2023) 6 SCC 605 (Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs. State of West
Bengal) [relevant paragraph 20], 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421 (Manju nath
& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka) [relevant paragraph 27]; (2021) 13 SCC
4
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
716, Jaikam Khan Vs. State of UP, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 453, Abdul
Wahid & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (1993) 3 SCC 282, (2019) 2 SCC
303, State of UP Vs.Wasif Haider & Ors.).
3. The learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Sinha has submitted that
although there are some minor omissions, contradictions in the versions of
the prosecution witnesses in connection with the depiction of the convicts’
role in the crime, version relating to the role played by and participation of,
the appellants had been well established and the prosecution witnesses
withstood during their cross-examination and therefore the prosecution case
could not be falsified.
4. It is further contended that the ocular version is wholly corroborated
by medical evidence. Moreover, the learned Trial Judge has very rightly
taken into consideration the earlier incident of threat and assault upon the
victim by the accused. Although in the FIR minute details are not required
to be included but immediately after the incident the inquest over the dead
body was done by the concerned police personnel and all relevant facts and
incidents including the ones prior to the date of incident have been taken
into consideration. Moreover, the seizure of the iron rod at the behest of the
accused, Sonu also supports the incident of assault depicted by the
prosecution witnesses.
5. The learned counsel of the State has drawn the attention of this court
to the deposition of PW10 Dr. Avijit Ghoshal, who found multiple injuries
5
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
including Chop wound, lacerated wound, puncture wound, fractured wound
and they are completely in consonance with the eye witness’s version. PW2
and PW3 Anup Kumar Verma and Babujan Ansari were the eyewitnesses
who saw the accused to inflict injuries upon the victim with the offending
weapons. The cross-examination of PW13 could not discredit the version of
the prosecution witnesses. The deposition of PW1, Md. Lal Babu to the effect
that the victim verbally intimated him about the names of the assailants
was not denied in his cross-examination and therefore, this piece of
evidence should be taken into consideration by the court.
6. Lastly, Mrs. Sinha, learned counsel for the State, has submitted that
there is no scope for this court to set aside the impugned judgment and
order of conviction and sentence.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and I have
further taken into consideration the relevant judicial decisions as referred to
by the learned counsel of the defence/ appellants.
8. At the very outset, we would like to say that the observation of the
Learned Trial Judge that the instant case was of circumstantial evidence is
not at all correct. In fact, the prosecution relies upon some direct evidence of
certain witnesses namely, PW1, Lalbabu, PW2 Anup Kumar Verma and PW3
Babujan. Furthermore, recovery of the offending instrument was done
allegedly in presence of PW9 Dinesh Gupta and PW12 Manjur Alam.
6
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
9. Admittedly, PW1 Lalbabu, the defacto-complainant was not present at
the spot when the offence took place. However, according to him, he along
with others shifted the victim to a nearby hospital from the place of
occurrence in an auto rickshaw, and at that time the victim narrated to him
the names of his assailants.
10. However, these vital facts of shifting the victim to the hospital by
Lalbabu, the PW1, along with others and disclosure of the names of
assailants to the complainant by the victim were not mentioned in the FIR at
all. The omission to narrate the vital facts may change the colour of the case
of the prosecution instantaneously, if such omissions are not made
believable with other cogent material evidence on record.
11. There may be an omission to disclose some relevant facts in the FIR
and such omission may not turn out to be fatal in all sorts of cases, since it
is an established principle that FIR cannot be an encyclopedia of events. But
that does not mean that the prosecution or its witnesses can improve the
initial prosecution case at their own sweet will. To understand that the
alleged omission is really an omission and not an attempt to improve the
case, the court should scrutinize the other material evidence brought on
record.
12. Now, in this case, there may be an omission on the part of the
defacto-complainant to narrate those vital facts in the FIR since, in all
probabilities, he was in a state of shock at that point of time. But the bed
7
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
head tickets and other hospital records could have shown the names of the
persons who actually brought the victim to the hospital along with history of
assault. This is the procedure maintained by the hospitals. But the I.O. did
not seize the said bed head tickets or other hospital records for the reasons
best known to him. If such hospital records were produced, this court could
have understood that PW1, PW2 and PW3 were the persons who brought the
victim to the hospital and during the course of journey the victim had the
opportunity to disclose the names of his assailants and unfortunately the
PW1 being in a state of shock somehow missed to state these relevant facts
in the FIR. Therefore, in the absence of such statements in the F.I.R
alongwith non-production of initial medical records, it is very difficult to
hold that those omissions are mere omissions and not an attempt to
improve the case.
13. In this case, the auto rickshaw driver was also not examined to lend
support to the prosecution case that the victim was taken to hospital by
Lalbabu and others in his auto and the victim was not dead at that point of
time. The I.O. has deposed that at the time of inquest he came to know that
the local people took the victim to the hospital. During the inquest, Lalbabu
was present at the relevant place of inquest but he did not report to the I.O.
that he took the victim to hospital along with the others. The PW2, PW3 did
not state directly that they overheard that the victim was telling the names
of the assailants to the PW1 when he was being taken to hospital in an auto
rickshaw. They did not depose anything in this regard except that at that
time the victim was telling something to the defacto-complainant being the
8
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
PW1. During cross-examination of the I.O., though PW 3’s deposition was
contradicted by the I.O. when he stated that PW-3 Babujan Ansari did not
tell him that the victim Nasir was alive while they were travelling in auto.
However, no contradiction was taken to discredit PW2’s deposition that
when they were taking the victim to the hospital in an auto rickshaw the
victim was talking with his brother Lalbabu. There was no challenge from
the side of the defence regarding the deposition of PW1 Lalbabu, to the effect
that “on the way to hospital my elder brother told us that Ali Asgar, Sonu
and Mahendra Chowdhury assaulted him”. The same was not contradicted
through the cross-examination of PW 13, the investigating officer.
14. It is a well settled principle of law that a relevant fact is to be proved
by the best piece of evidence. The prosecution has tried to prove the case on
the basis of two sorts of evidence, first, the version of the victim himself
through his alleged dying declaration which he allegedly made to his
brother, PW1 Lalbabu and secondly on the basis of direct evidence of
assault upon the victim with the help of deposition of PW2 Anup Kumar
Verma, PW3 Babujan Ansari. In support of such direct evidence the
prosecution has also relied upon the deposition of PW9 Dinesh Gupta and
PW12 Manjur Alam who witnessed the recovery of the offending instrument
at the instance of the accused Sonu.
15. The question whether the victim actually narrated the names of his
assailants to PW1, is doubtful since there is no documentary evidence to the
effect that soon after the incident the victim was taken to the hospital by
9
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
PW1. The best piece of evidence in this regard is the hospital records which
usually records the name of the person who brings the victim to the
hospital. The history of assault is usually recorded at the time of admission.
In this case, the best evidence is lacking and further there is no material
showing that the wearing apparels of the PW-1 got bloodstained when he
was allegedly taking the victim to the hospital. The alleged oral dying
declaration of the victim, which is a vital fact, does not find place in the FIR
nor in the inquest report. Therefore, the prosecution was unable to prove
beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim had disclosed the names of his
assailants to the PW1. As such, the prosecution cannot succeed on the basis
of the alleged oral dying declaration of the victim.
16. However, according to the prosecution there were eyewitnesses to the
incident. Now let us see whether deposition of such eyewitnesses can be
relied upon or not. The PW2 namely, Anup Kumar Varma has specifically
stated that on 05.05.2009 he saw a crowd at Circus More and he further
saw three persons namely Ali Asgar, Sonu and Mahendra Chowdhury
threatening the victim Nasir Ansari that they will kill him. After a few
minutes they began to assault Nasir by Bhujali, Chopper and iron rod etc.
They were also threatening the people gathered there. Nasir fell on earth.
Thereafter the assailant left the place. Then Lalbabu and one Babujan
arrived there. Thereafter they took the victim to Bhatpara General State
Hospital by a hired auto rickshaw. After coming back to the place of
occurrence from the hospital he signed one seizure list and he identifies his
signature on the said seizure list and has specifically stated that the police
10
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
collected bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence and obtained his
signature. In his cross-examination the deposition of PW-2 that the accused
began to assault Nasir by Bhujali, Chopper and iron rod etc. was not denied.
The exhibit 3/1 shows that blood stained mud and ordinary mud of the
place of occurrence were seized by such seizure list and Mr. Anup Kumar
Varma being PW2 has not only identified his signature but has also rightly
deposed about the contents of the said seizure list. This lends credence to
the prosecution case that the PW2 was a witness to the seizure of such
articles. But whether the claim of the prosecution that he was an eyewitness
to the incident has any basis or not, we shall discuss the same after a while.
17. Now, if we scan the evidence of PW13 the investigating officer Mr.
Mrinal Pal we shall find that during his cross-examination it is found that
though PW2 Anup Kumar Varma did not tell him that three persons namely,
Ali Asgar, Md. Sonu and Mahendra Chowdhury were threatening Nasir that
they will kill him but he told the investigating officer only that he saw Ali
Asgar, Sonu and Mahendra Chowdhury were standing with Bhujali,
Chopper and iron rod etc. There is a dilemma as to why he did not tell the
I.O. that “after a few minutes the accused began to assault Nasir by Bhujali,
chopper and iron rod etc.” However, PW3 Babujan has stated in his
deposition that on 05.05.2009 he was waiting at Circus More with his
rickshaw around 1:30 PM. Sonu, Ali Asgar and Mahendra Chowdhury were
standing there. The victim Nasir was returning from somewhere. Sonu
attacked Nasir with a chopper. This statement of PW3 was not contradicted
11
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
during the cross-examination of the I.O., the PW-13. The record shows that
the PW3, Babujan has also stated that police collected blood stained earth
from the place of occurrence and he put his LTI on some documents at the
request of the police officer. PW13, the investigating officer, has also
deposed that he prepared the seizure list on 05.05.2009 and by such seizure
list blood stained earth and controlled earth were seized. This tends to show
that the PW3 was also present at the place of occurrence at the time of such
seizure. The deposition of PW3 that Sonu attacked Nasir with a chopper and
Mahendra assaulted Nasir with a stick (pointed iron rod) was not
contradicted during the cross-examination of PW-13, the investigating
officer. It is true that during his cross-examination, the PW-3 Babujan has
stated that he had seen Nasir’s dead body on road after his death but the
post mortem report disclosed that the victim died at about 2:10 P.M. as per
the report of the police. Whether a person is dead or not can be ascertained
by the medical personnel. One may become senseless due to serious injuries
and a layman not being a medical personnel may be unable to understand
whether he is dead or not. Only the medical personnel can declare a person
dead. Therefore, even the PW3 deposed that he had seen Nasir’s dead body
on the road after his death; such deposition cannot be considered as final
opinion about the death of the victim Nasir. In view of the post mortem
report, he died at 2:10 p.m. in the hospital but the same was recorded in the
post mortem report on the basis of a report of the police personnel.
Considering all aspects of the matter, we do find that the evidence of PW2
and PW3 regarding assault upon the victim almost remained unshaken
12
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
during their cross-examination. The postmortem report also lends support
to such deposition regarding the manner of assault by chopper, pointed iron
road etc. But inspite of such deposition of PW2 and PW3 this court finds
that such depositions are also not free from blemishes and doubt. It is not
understandable as to why the prosecution has relied upon only the
witnesses who have come from Mominpara, Jagaddal and not from the local
witnesses of Circus more where the incident actually occurred. It is also
astonishing that the seizure list witnesses in connection with the recovery of
an iron rod upon which the prosecution has heavily relied upon, also hail
from the said place of Mominpara, Jagaddal. It is further astonishing that
the I.O. did not examine the meat shop of owner Altaf Kureshi in connection
with the seizure of the iron rod from a place near to his meat shop. On the
other hand, such a seizure list was prepared in presence of two witnesses
namely Dinesh Gupta and Manjur Alam who hail from Mominpara, that is,
the locality of PW1 and the deceased. The recovery statement of the accused
Sonu was not exhibited for the reasons best known to the I.O. It is also
found that such an iron rod was recovered from a drain which is a public
place. In the case of Manju Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421 the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 26 has
discussed the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:-
“26. Further discovery made, to be one
satisfying the requirements of Section 27, Indian
Evidence Act it must be a fact that is discovered
as a consequence of information received from a
132025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
person in custody. The conditions have been
discussed by the Privy Council in Pulukuri
Kotayya v. King Emperor and the position was
reiterated by this Court in Mohd.
Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, in the
following terms:–
“12…It will be seen that the first condition
necessary for bringing this section into operation
is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact,
in consequence of the information received from
a person accused of an offence. The second is
that the discovery of such fact must be deposed
to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of
the information the accused must be in police
custody. The last but the most important
condition is that only “so much of the
information” as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the
information has to be excluded. The word
“distinctly” means “directly”, “indubitably”,
“strictly”, “unmistakably”. The word has been
advisedly used to limit and define the scope of
the provable information. The phrase “distinctly
relates to the fact thereby discovered” is the
linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to
that part of the information supplied by the
accused which is the direct and immediate
cause of the discovery…”
18. From the above, it is transpired that such conditions were not
complied with in the case in hand. In the case Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs.
14
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
State of West Bengal reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605 the recovery from
places accessible to public has been seriously doubted and placing reliance
upon such recoveries is held to be an incorrect approach from the part of
the trial court.
19. In the case of Abdul Wahid & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 453, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to
observe that it is for the prosecution to connect the accused to the murder
of the deceased by producing credible and legally admissible evidence. If
there is no credible evidence at all to connect the accused persons with the
homicidal death of the victim, the accused are entitled to the benefit of
doubt.
20. In the case of State of UP Vs. Wasif Haider & Ors. reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 303 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that
defective or faulty investigation fortifies the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused and in such cases the benefit of doubt arising out of a
faulty investigation accrues in favour of the accused. In the case of Ram
Kumar Pandey Vs. State of M.P reported in (1975) 3 SCC 815 the
Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that failure to mention about
the existence of dying declaration in the FIR is proved to be fatal for the
prosecution.
21. From the above discussion it is found that there are several lapses in
the investigation as already mentioned above. The iron rod was allegedly
15
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
recovered from a public place and the I.O. did not examine the local
witnesses of the alleged place of occurrence and place of seizure rather he
relied upon witnesses who hail from the locality of the defacto-complainant
and the victim. The recovery statement was not brought on record as
evidence. The prosecution has relied upon only the witnesses who belonged
to the locality of the victim although the place of occurrence was at Circus
more which was a faraway place from the locality of the victim. The Pw 2 in
his cross examination has said that it would take 20/25 minutes’ walk from
his residence at Mominpara to reach Circus More. Moreover, the alleged
recovery of the iron rod was done also from a distant place from the locality
of the victim’s residence and also from the place of occurrence and
astonishingly, the witnesses of such seizure list were also from the locality of
the victim. There are no medical papers showing that the victim was taken
to hospital by the PW1, PW2 and PW3 and not by the local people of Circus
more. Another aspect which raises a doubt in the mind of the court that
though the factum of dying declaration was not mentioned in the FIR and
the inquest report, why such improvement was done by the prosecution with
the help of PW1, PW2 and PW3 who belonged to the same locality although
the death of the victim took place at Circus more and no witness of the
locality at Circus more has supported the prosecution case. It has also
added more confusion and doubt as to why recovery of the iron rod was
shown to be done in presence of Dinesh Gupta and Manjur Alam who were
also the residents of the victim’s locality. PW9 Dinesh Gupta and PW1 Md.
Lalbaba were involved in the murder of Mahendra Chowdhury who was also
16
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
an accused in the instant case. Therefore, there is a serious doubt in the
mind of the court that the factum of dying declaration may be an
afterthought of the prosecution witnesses and improvement of the case was
done by the prosecution including the recovery of iron rod with the help of
PW9 Dinesh Gupta and PW12 Manjur Alam who were also the residents of
the locality of PW1 the defacto-complainant. This vital aspect was not
properly considered by the Learned Trial Judge. In fact the Learned Trial
Judge has wrongly mentioned that “though it has conclusively not been
proved but it is evident that on refusal to pay Hapta Money Nasir Mia was
being assaulted by the accused person with the help of chopper/knife,
cabab stick/pointed sik (pointed iron rod)”.
22. It appears that the Learned Trial Judge has made such an observation
without any supporting and corroborative evidence, which is, in our view,
not at all a correct approach. It is also found that the examination of the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also not done properly. All the
relevant incriminating materials and statements of the witnesses were
clubbed together and thereafter they were put to the accused during
examination which is again not a correct approach adopted by the Learned
Trial Judge. In this regard, I would like to recollect the relevant judicial
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court Naval Kishore Singh Vs. State of
Bihar reported in (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 502 and Tara Singh Vs.
State reported in 1951 Supreme Court Cases 903.
17
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
23. In Naval Kishore Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to observe as hereunder:-
Under Section 313 CrPC the accused should
have been given an opportunity to explain any of
the circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him. At least, the various items of
evidence, which had been produced by the
prosecution, should have been put to the
accused in the form of questions and he should
have been given the opportunity to give his
explanation. No such opportunity was given to
the accused in the instant case. We deprecate
the practice of putting the entire evidence
against the accused put together in a single
question and giving an opportunity to explain
the same, as the accused may not be in a
position to give a rational and intelligent
explanation. The trial Judge should have kept in
mind the importance of giving an opportunity to
the accused to explain the adverse
circumstances in the evidence and the Section
313 examination shall not be carried out as an
empty formality. It is only after the entire
evidence is unfurled the accused would be in a
182025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
position to articulate his defence and to give
explanation to the circumstances appearing in
evidence against him. Such an opportunity being
given to the accused is part of a fair trial and if it
is done in a slipshod manner, it may result in
imperfect appreciation of evidence. In various
decisions of this Court, the importance of
questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC
was given due emphasis, e.g. Ram Shankar
Singh v. State of W.B., Bhalinder Singh v. State
of Punjab, State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev
Singh and Lallu Manjhi v. State of
Jharkhand. ( emphasis added)
24. In Tara Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
observe as hereunder:-
“The whole object of Section 342 (Sec. 313 Code
of 1973) (emphasis added) is to afford the
accused a fair and proper opportunity of
explaining circumstances which appear against
him. The questioning must therefore be fair and
must be couched in a form which an ignorant or
illiterate person will be able to appreciate and
192025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
understand. Even when an accused person is
not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed
when he is facing a charge of murder. He is
therefore in no fit position to understand the
significance of a complex question. Fairness
therefore requires that each material
circumstance should be put simply and
separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or
one which is perturbed or confused, can readily
appreciate and understand. I do not suggest
that every error or omission in this behalf would
necessarily vitiate a trial because I am of the
opinion that errors of this type fall within the
category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the
question in each case depends upon the degree
of the error and upon whether prejudice has
been occasioned or is likely to have been
occasioned.” (Emphasis added)
25. Considering all aspects, we find that prosecution has not been able to
prove the case against the appellants beyond all sorts of reasonable doubt
and in view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed on
contest. The appellants namely, Md. Sonu @ Sandrey Alam @ Sonu Ansari
and Ali Asgar @ Lasgari are acquitted from the charges and be set at liberty
at once, if not wanted in any other case. The judgment and order of
20
2025:CHC-AS:1328-DB
conviction dated 29.06.2015 and 30.06.2015 passed by the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge (In-Charge), Fast Track, 4th Court, (Barrackpore)
in Sessions Trial No. 2(2) of 2010 [arising out of Sessions Case No. 413 of
2009] are hereby set aside. The trial court record be sent to the concerned
court at once.
26. Thus, CRA 436 of 2015 with CRAN 2 of 2016 (Old CRAN 195 of 2016)
and CRA 443 of 2015 with CRAN 1 of 2015 (Old CRAN 2957 of 2015) are
accordingly disposed of. CRAN 3 of 2018 (Old CRAN 203 of 2018) has
already been dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2021.
27. Urgent photostat certified copies of this Judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties on compliance of all necessary formalities.
I Agree
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J)
(APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)