Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 21 August, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
&
The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
C.R.A.(DB) 94 of 2022
IA No. CRAN 1 of 2022
CRAN 2 of 2025
Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan & Anr.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal
With
C.R.A. (DB) 95 of 2023
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2014
Mustafa @ Golam Mustafa
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellants : Mrs. Nayaab Mulla, Adv.
[CRA (DB) 94 of 2022] Mr. Sourat Nandy, Adv.
For the Appellants : Mr. Anand Keshari, Adv.
[CRA (DB) 95 of 2023] Ms. Soumili Choudhury, Adv.
Ms. Pubali Debnath, Adv.
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
2
For the State : Mrs. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. A.P.P.
Ms. Rajnandini Das, Adv.
Hearing concluded on : 11th July, 2025
Judgment On : 21st August, 2025
Prasenjit Biswas, J:-
1.
Both the appeals are directed against the impugned
judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 and 28.04.2022 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haldia, Purba Medinipur
in connection with Sessions Trial No. 05(03) of 2017.
2. By passing the impugned judgment and order, the appellant
Mustafa @ Sk. Golam Mustafa, was convicted under Section
302/201/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This accused was also
convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections
25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The accused Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and
Amrez @ Sk. Amrez were convicted under Sections 302/201/34 of
the Indian Penal Code. The accused Mustafa @ Golam Mustafa,
Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez were sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each,
in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
3
imprisonment for a period of six months each on their conviction
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
So far as the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code
is concerned, the convicts Mustafa @ Golam Mustafa, Rejuan @
Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.
2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months. So far as the offence under Section
411 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the convict Mustafa @
Golam Mustafa was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two years. The accused Mustafa @ Sk. Golam Mustafa was
further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years with
fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence
under Section 25 of the Arms Act. So far as the offence under
Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the convict Mustafa @
Sk. Mustafa was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of
fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
4
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned
judgment and order of conviction the convict Mustafa @ Sk.
Mustafa preferred an appeal being CRA 95 of 2023 and other two
convicts namely, Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez
preferred another appeal challenging the said impugned judgment
and order of conviction being CRA 94 of 2022.
4. In short campus the story of the prosecution is as follows:
“The FIR was lodged before Nandigram Police Station by
one Jahanara Khatun, the wife of the deceased Sk.
Kurban on 28.10.2006 on the basis of information
gathered from her daughter Mamoni Khatun. It is
stated in the written complaint that on that day at
about 12 noon, the husband of the de-facto
complainant was returning towards his house from the
matrimonial home of his daughter Mamoni Khatun at
village Sarberia under P.S. Nandigram on a bicycle.
Their daughter Mamoni Khatun was also with the
deceased. On reaching near Khalparh, village Dakshin
Nandigram, the deceased stopped his bicycle and asked
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
5her daughter to wait there since the accused Mustafa
called him. The accused Mustafa was standing at a
distance of around 100 cubits away from Mamoni
Khatun. It is further stated that during conversation
Mustafa shot fire on the head of the deceased Sk.
Kurban from a fire arm and as a result the deceased fell
down having sustained gunshot injury. Thereafter, the
accused Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez
along with other accused persons came to the place of
occurrence and started assaulting on the deceased. The
daughter of the deceased Mamoni Khatun who was at
the place of occurrence started shouting and rushed to
the house of the sister of the deceased namely, Manu
Bibi which is situated near to the place of occurrence.
After sometime Mamoni Khatun along with Manu Bibi
came to the place of occurrence and saw that the
accused Mustafa @ Golam Mustafa, Rejuan @ Sk.
Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez were taking the dead
body of the deceased on a motor-cycle towards
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
6Samsabad. The accused Mustafa was driving the motor-
cycle and other two accused persons namely, Rejuan @
Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez were assisting him.
It is stated that the accused persons had thrown the
dead body of the deceased into the water of a ‘khal’
(canal) at Amgachi, Samsabad and they fled away from
the spot. It is the case of the prosecution that the
accused Mustafa @ Sk. Golam Mustafa, Rejuan @ Sk.
Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez snatched the
motorcycle being registered no. WB-30C/3301 from one
Sk. Kurban, son of Sk. Israfil of Sarberia by which the
dead body of the deceased was carried from Dakshin
Nandigram Khalparh to Samsabad.”
5. Over the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant a
case being Nandigram P.S. Case No. 69/2006 dated 28.06.2006
under Section 302/201/392/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was started against the
accused Mustafa, Rejuan and Amrez.
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
7
6. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted
by the prosecuting agency against these appellants/convicts along
with other accused persons under Section
302/201/392/411/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 25(1A)(1B)/27 Arms Act. Trial Court framed charge
against these appellants along with other accused persons under
Sections 302/201/392/411/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and the separate charge was framed under Sections 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act and under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code
against the accused Mustafa @ Sk. Golam Mustafa.
7. In this case, 18 (eighteen) witnesses were examined by the
side of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibit 1
to exhibit 16 on behalf of it. In this case, two seized articles viz.,
one fire arm and one motorcycle were marked as Material Exhibits
I and II on behalf of the prosecution. Neither any oral, nor any
documentary evidences were adduced on behalf of the defence.
8. Mr. Anand Keshari, learned Advocate for the
appellant/convict Mustafa @ Golam Mustafa said that the
evidences on record does not justify the conviction of the
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
8
appellants and as such, the impugned judgement and order of
conviction does not stand under the eye of law. It is said by the
learned Advocate that the conviction of this appellant is based on
the testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW2) who is the daughter of
the deceased, who has deposed about the role played by the
appellants, but said deposition is clouded with suspicions and
doubts. It is said by the learned Advocate that the evidences of the
prosecution witnesses is exaggerated and there is exaggeration of
the fact and as such, no reliance can be placed on the oral
evidence of PW1, Jahanara Khatun (wife of the deceased), PW2,
Mamoni Khatun (daughter). It is further submitted by the learned
Advocate that PW1 is not an eye-witness and the entire case of the
prosecution suffers from defects. There are contradictions and
omissions in the statements of these witnesses for which the
evidences of the prosecution cannot be said to be trustworthy. As
per submission of the learned Advocate the ballistic report is not
matching with the seized gun and there is no signature or thumb
impression of the accused persons on the disclosure statement on
the basis of which the alleged fire arm and stolen motorcycle were
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
9
recovered. Merely, recovery of articles by the police on the basis of
statement by the accused only proves the recovery but it does not
prove the guilt of this accused.
9. It is said by Mr. Nayaab Mulla, the learned Advocate for the
appellants in CRA (DB) 94/2022 that the prosecution has failed to
prove any reliable evidence regarding involvement of the other two
accused persons i.e. Rejuan and Amrez. It is contended that the
prosecution has failed to prove that they conspired to murder the
deceased Sk. Kurban and it has not been proved that in
furtherance of common intention all the accused persons
committed murder the deceased Sk. Kurban.
10. Mrs. Anasuya Sinha, learned Advocate for the State said that
there is nothing material on record for which the impugned
judgment and order of conviction may be interfered with. It is said
by the learned Advocate that PW2, Mamoni Khatun, the daughter
of the deceased and the de-facto complainant is the witness to the
incident. The deposition made by PW2 gets corroboration from the
other witnesses i.e. PW1, Jahanara Khatun (wife of the deceased)
and PW3, Manu Bibi (sister of the deceased) as well as supported
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
10
by the medical evidence. It is contended by the learned Advocate
that evidence of solitary eye-witness if it is found wholly reliable
can form the basis of conviction. The fire arm used in this crime
has been recovered on the pointing out of the accused Mustafa
and motorcycle which was snatched from Sk. Kurban (PW4) and
was used to carry the dead body of the deceased was recovered at
the instance of the accused Mustafa. So, it is said that the
prosecution has proved the case against these appellants/convicts
beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. It is prayed that the instant
appeal may be dismissed outright and the impugned judgment
and order of conviction may be affirmed.
11. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by both
the parties and have gone through all the materials on the record.
12. PW2, Mamoni Khatun, the daughter of the deceased Sk.
Kurban is the solitary eye-witness to the incident. She stated in
her evidence that on the relevant date i.e. on 28.10.2006 at about
10.30/11.00 A.M. she left her matrimonial home with the
deceased and started proceeding to her father’s house by sitting
on the carrier of the bicycle of his father and when they reached
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
11
near at Khalparh at Dakshin Nandigram, the deceased stopped
his bicycle and asked her to wait there as the accused Mustafa
called him. It is further stated by this witness that his father
(deceased) proceeded towards the accused Mustafa who stood at a
distance about 100 cubits from her and thereafter conversation
between the deceased of the accused Mustafa was started. It is
said that during such conversation the accused Mustafa shot fire
from his pistol on right side of the head of his father, just before
his right ear and then the deceased fell down at the side of
‘khalparh’.
13. PW2 in her evidence further stated that the house of PW3
Manu Bibi (sister of the deceased) is at near the said ‘khalparh’
and when the deceased fell down sustaining bullet injury, the
accused persons namely, Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk.
Amrez along with other accused persons came to the spot and
started to assault her father. Then, this PW2 started shouting and
rushed to the house of PW3 and reported her about the incident
and thereafter this witness and PW3 came back to the place of
occurrence and found the accused Mustafa was taking the dead
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
12
body of the deceased on a motorcycle and at that time the accused
Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez along with other
accused persons were assisting the accused Mustafa to take the
dead body of his father to the motorcycle. The said motorcycle was
driven by the Mustafa and this witness (PW2) started running
behind the motorcycle and noticed that when the said motorcycle
was going to ‘uchhu-pool’ dead body of her father along with
others fell down on the ground with the said motorcycle.
Thereafter, these accused persons again took the dead body on
the motorcycle. During cross-examination this PW2 reiterated that
on hearing the sound of firing, she realised that her father
sustained bullet injury. This witness has stated in his evidence
that these accused persons were taking the dead body of the
deceased towards Samsabad on a motorcycle. It is said that this
PW2 along with PW3 went to the house of the deceased and
informed PW2 who is wife of the deceased about the incident
happened.
14. PW1, Jahanara Khatun lodged the written complaint before
the police station after having come to know about the incident
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
13
from her daughter Mamoni Khatun (PW2). The names of the
accused Mustafa @ Sk. Golam Mustafa, Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and
Amrez @ Sk. Amrez were mentioned in the written complainant,
PW1 has stated in her evidence that the incident took place on
28.06.2006 at about 1.30 P.M. at village Dakshin Nandigram by
the side of a Khal and on that date at about 7-00 A.M. her
husband, the deceased Sk. Kurban left home and proceeded for
the matrimonial home of their daughter (PW2) and on the same
date when the deceased was returning home along with PW2 from
the matrimonial home of PW2, the accused Mustafa who stood at
Dakshin Nandigram by the side of a ‘khal’ called him. It is said by
this witness that the deceased stopped his motorbike and keeping
PW2 with motorbike at place, he went to the accused Mustafa and
during conversation the accused Mustafa shot fire on the head of
the deceased by a pistol and as a resultant effect the deceased fell
down in a nearby ‘khal’. It is further said by this witness that on
seeing her husband in that condition, the accused Rejuan @ Sk.
Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez along with other accused persons
came to the spot and started assaulting her husband with knife
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
14
and other weapons. This witness is not the witness to the incident
and she stated in her evidence that she did not see any incident
and she reached to the place of occurrence after about an hour of
incident. So, this PW1 lodged complaint on the basis of the
information getting from PW2 who is their daughter and only eye-
witness to the incident.
15. PW3, Manu Bibi in her evidence has stated that when she
and PW2 (Mamoni Khatun) rushed to Khalparh of village Dakshin
Nandigram, then she noticed that the dead body of the deceased
was on a motorcycle and two persons caught hold the dead body
of the deceased and one person was driving the motorcycle.
Although, this witness could not identify the accused person but
what it is evident from her deposition that three persons were
involved in the crime.
16. PW4, Sk. Kurban has stated in his evidence that on the
relevant date and time of incident he was proceeding towards
Dakshin Nandigram on his yellow coloured motorcycle bearing no.
WB-30-C/3301 and when he was crossing Khalparh at village
Samsabad, then two persons, whose faces were under black cloth,
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
15
suddenly intercepted him and forcefully got him down from his
motorcycle and thereafter they left the place with his motorcycle.
This incident of snatching motorcycle was reported to the
concerned police station by this PW4 and after 20/25 days from
the date of incident police informed about the recovery of his
motorcycle.
17. The carbon copy of post-mortem report is marked as exhibit
in this case and from which it appears that the autopsy surgeon
opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the
effect of gunshot injury -ante-mortem homicidal in nature. The
autopsy surgeon who conducted the post-mortem report was not
examined in this case but the carbon copy of the said report with
original signature and seal of the surgeon has been marked as
exhibit 14 on the basis of petition under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the side of the prosecution. The genuineness of the said
post-mortem report was not disputed by the side of the defence
and the same was marked as exhibit in connection with this case
before the Trial Court. The post-mortem report indicates that the
dead body was of the deceased Sk. Kurban was brought from
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
16
Samsabad to the District Hospital, Purba Medinipur, Tamluk for
conducting post-mortem examination.
18. PW15 in his evidence has stated that during investigation he
arrested the accused Golam Mustafa and when the accused was
in police custody, he recovered one country made pipe gun and
one motor cycle under a seizure list dated 13.11.2006 at the
instance of Sk. Golam Mustafa. The seizure list dated 13.11.2006
and the disclosure statement of accused Golam Mustafa are
marked as exhibits 5/1 and 13 respectively in this case.
19. In this case, the seized fire arm was sent for getting opinion
from the ballistic expert. The ballistic report is marked as exhibit
in this case by PW13. At the time of giving deposition PW13 has
said that he conducted test firing in the laboratory and performed
microscopic examination on the basis of which he came to the
conclusion that the pistol was in working order, it was fired
through previously; the improvised ammunition was not live. But
PW13 could not be able to give opinion definitely as to whether
bullet was fired from the pistol or not due to insufficient data. It
appears from the post-mortem report that the cause of death of
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
17
the deceased Sk. Kurban was due to effects of gunshot injury.
PW2 who is solitary eye-witness to the incident has stated in her
evidence that the accused Mustafa shot fire on the head of her
father.
20. It is the well-settled principle that evidence of solitary eye-
witness if it is found wholly reliable can form the basis for
conviction and there is no legal impediment in basing the
conviction of the accused solely on the testimony of a single
witness. In the instant case, the sole eye-witness PW2 (Mamoni
Khatun) has stood firm during examination and cross-
examination. She has given a cogent, consistent and natural
account of the incident. There is no material contradiction in her
version and the Trial Court came to the conclusion of the guilt of
the accused Mustafa @ Sk. Golam Mustafa upon her testimony to
be natural, convincing and reliable. The presence of the accused
Mustafa at the time of occurrence is proved. It is further proved
that the accused Sk Mustafa used fire arm to murder the victim.
There is no legal bar in convicting a person of sole testimony of a
single witness, but the evidence as solitary witness must be
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
18
scrutinized with care and caution, but once the Court is convinced
of truthfulness of the witness, the conviction can be sustained.
21. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the convict Golam
Mustafa that no reliance can be placed upon the carbon copy of
the Post Mortem Report which is marked as exhibit in the case. It
is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ordinarily, when a post-mortem report is relied upon, the
examination of the doctor who conducted the autopsy is necessary
to establish the cause of death and to clarify any medical findings
recorded therein. However, there may be circumstances where the
autopsy surgeon is not available or does not come to depose before
the Court. In the present case, although the autopsy surgeon did
not enter the witness box, the carbon copy of the post-mortem
report has been duly brought on record and marked as an exhibit
without objection from the defence. The said document forms part
of the official record and has been proved through proper custody.
In such a situation, when the genuineness of the report is not
challenged, the Court is not precluded from taking into account its
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
19
contents, especially where it corroborates other substantive
evidence on record. Non-examination of the doctor who conducted
the post-mortem is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case,
particularly when the report is admitted into evidence and
supports the prosecution version in material particulars. Carbon
Copy of the Post Mortem Report is of the victim Sk. Kurban and
bears the original signature of the autopsy surgeon and original
seal of the Medical Officer, District Hospital Purba Medinipur.
Therefore, in the present case, the carbon copy of the post-mortem
report having been admitted in evidence and duly exhibited,
carries evidentiary value under Section 294 Cr.P.C read with
Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The defence did not demand the
presence of the medical officer nor disputed the authenticity of the
report. Hence, the report can be safely relied upon to support the
prosecution’s case, particularly where it aligns with the ocular and
circumstantial evidence on record. The Trial Court is thus justified
in placing reliance on the post-mortem report even in the absence
of oral testimony by the autopsy surgeon, especially when the
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
20
chain of evidence otherwise remains unbroken and the guilt of the
accused is established beyond reasonable doubt.
22. It is well settled that the criminal justice system does not
require a case to be proved with absolute perfection. Minor
discrepancies or technical defects in the chain of evidence do not
necessarily vitiate the prosecution’s case when the core evidence
remains intact and reliable. In the present case, although the
ballistic expert’s report reflects slight variations in the description
of the seized firearm, the fact remains that the firearm was seized
at the instance and in presence of the accused Golam Mustafa,
under a duly recorded seizure memo. Variations in the ballistic
report do not go to the root of the prosecution’s case unless the
identity of the weapon itself is seriously disputed or evidence
suggests tampering. The Trial Court observed that the recovery of
a firearm is proved and is made in the presence of the accused,
then minor discrepancies in its description between the seizure
memo and expert report do not warrant acquittal, unless it affects
the authenticity of the recovery itself. In the case at hand, the
accused was present at the time of seizure, and there is no
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
21
allegation of fabrication or substitution of the weapon. The firearm
has been consistently referred to throughout the investigation and
trial. Therefore, the Court is entitled to place reliance on the
recovery and ballistic evidence, despite minor discrepancies, and
such variations cannot be a ground for acquitting the accused
when the substantive evidence of recovery is otherwise
trustworthy.
23. Coming to the facts with the present case, the eye-witness
Mamoni Khatun (PW2) has given a consistent, coherent and
credible narration of the events that unfold on the date of incident.
Her testimony has remained unshaken during cross-examination
and is found to be natural and truthful. She had no enmity with
the accused and had no reason to falsely implicate him. The
presence of this witness (PW2) on the spot is also established
through circumstantial details and no material inconsistencies
have been brought out by the defence to discard her testimony.
Her statement is also inconsonance with the medical evidence on
record i.e. (post-mortem report) regarding the nature of the
injuries and cause of the death. So, in this case this PW2 being a
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
22
solitary eye-witness is found reliable and trustworthy and her
evidence is sufficient to base conviction. We have carefully
scrutinised her evidence and it inspires our confidence and as
such, there is no impediment in restricting conviction solely on
her testimony.
24. The incident occurred at a short distance, giving PW2 a clear
and unobstructed view of the occurrence. Her testimony is
consistent in material particulars with the contents of the
promptly lodged FIR. The cross-examination of PW2 did not yield
any material contradictions or omissions that would shake the
core of his narrative. The defence has not brought on record any
cogent material to show that PW2 had a motive to falsely implicate
the accused. In fact, the spontaneity of her conduct in
immediately reporting the incident to the defacto complainant
lends assurance to her truthfulness. We are not unmindful about
the proposition of law that the law does not require plurality of
witnesses; even the evidence of a single witness is sufficient,
cogent, reliable and trustworthy conviction can be made on the
basis of the testimony of solitary eye-witness. The appellant
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
23
Mustafa @ Sk. Mustafa has failed to shake the credibility of the
sole eye-witness in any meaningful manner. Merely because no
other person has been examined or no corroboration of other
witnesses produced it cannot be a ground to discard otherwise
reliable testimony. In view of these circumstances, this Court is
satisfied that PW2’s evidence is of sterling quality — consistent,
cogent, and free from any taint of false implication. The trial court,
after careful scrutiny, recorded a finding of guilt on this basis.
Such a finding, grounded in settled legal principles and supported
by the factual matrix, calls for no interference in appeal.
25. It appears from exhibit 5 i.e. the seizure list dated
13.11.2006 wherein the accused Sk. Gulam Mustafa puts his
signature and received a copy of the said seizure list. On the basis
of which the motorcycle bearing no. WB-30C/3301, used for
carrying the dead body of the deceased and one fire arm were
recovered. Thus, Exhibit-5 stands proved beyond doubt, and the
recovery of the motorcycle and the firearm in the presence of the
accused, constitutes an important link in the chain of
circumstances connecting the accused to the offence. This
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
24
recovery when taken together with the other evidence on record,
unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused and is wholly
inconsistent with any hypothesis of his innocence.
26. Upon careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, it
is evident that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any
cogent or convincing material to conclusively establish the
involvement of the accused persons namely Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan
and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez with the alleged offence. PW2 has stated
that the accused Mustafa fired by his fire arm aiming the head of
the deceased and she found only one bullet injury on the body of
her father (deceased). Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take
the place of legal proof. In the absence of trustworthy and reliable
evidence linking the accused to the offence beyond reasonable
doubt, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
27. As such, the conviction against those two accused persons
namely, Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez is not
sustainable under the eye of law. Accordingly, judgment and order
of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court against these two
accused persons is hereby set aside. But considering the totality of
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
25
the circumstances we are of the view that the prosecution has
successfully proved its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt
against the accused Mustafa @ Sk. Golam Mustafa.
28. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction
passed by the learned Trial Court dated 27.04.2022 and
28.04.2022 passed in connection with S.T. Case No. 05(03)17 is
hereby affirmed against the accused Mustafa @ Sk. Golam
Mustafa.
29. The appeal being CRA 95 of 2023 is hereby dismissed.
30. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by
the learned Trial Court against the accused persons namely,
Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez is hereby set aside.
31. The appeal being CRA 94 of 2022 is hereby allowed.
32. All connected applications, if any, filed in connection with
this appeal are hereby disposed of.
33. In view of provision of Section 437A of Cr.P.C. the appellants
namely, Rejuan @ Sk. Rejuan and Amrez @ Sk. Amrez shall have
to execute bail bonds with sureties and such bail bonds shall be
in force for six months.
2025:CHC-AS:1613-DB
26
34. Let a copy of this order along with the Trial Court Records be
sent down to the Trial Court immediately for taking necessary
steps in this regard.
35. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties on payment of requisite fees.
[PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.]
36. I Agree
[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]