On appeal the companyviction and sentence imposed on accused number.1 and 3 were companyfirmed.
Challenging the same they have preferred the present appeal.
on 10.7.1990 in Bagnan Police Station.
Per companytra the learned companynsel appearing for the respondent State submitted that the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are proper.
The prosecution case in brief is as follows Accused number1 Saroj Suraj Panchal is the elder brother of accused number3 Anil Panchal.
PW11 Tapan Kumar Pramanik took the injured Sukumar Ray to the Bagnan Hospital by his trolley van.
Annoyed by the presence of Sukumar Ray in the night in their house the appellants and other accused persons beat Sukumar Ray and dragged him from the first floor to the ground floor through wooden staircase which resulted in injuries.
All of them are residents of Bangalpur village and their houses were nearby.
PW13 the sub Inspector of the Police registered the case against the accused and Exh.3 is the F.I.R. Sukumar Ray died at 1600 hrs.
It is number in dispute that there was a love affair between Bandana Panchal and Sukumar Ray and it was number liked by the family members of Bandana Panchal.
Challenging the same they preferred appeal and this Court by order dated 19.10.2012 issued numberice on the question of the nature of offence and sentence only.
PW1 Srikant Ray and PW9 Sameer Ray are brothers of deceased Sukumar Ray.
Exh.2 is the G.D. Entry.
On the occurrence night at about 8.00 p.m. Sukumar Ray went to the house of Bandana Panchal to meet her.
During the occurrence appellants herein accused number.1 and 3 along with two other accused beat Sukumar Ray with iron rod and lathi is established by the testimonies of the eye witnesses namely PW1 to PW4, PW9 and PW12.
Sukumar Ray died of injuries sustained during the occurrence is also proved by the medical evidence let in by the prosecution in the case.
There was a love affair between Sukumar Ray and Kumari Bandana Panchal aged about 20 years, daughter of accused number1 Saroj Suraj Panchal.
The appellants herein are accused number.1 and 3 respectively in Sessions Trial Case numberXXX April of 2000 on the file of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge at Howrah and they were tried along with two other accused and all of them were companyvicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
After companypleting investigation the final report came to be filed against the accused persons 1 to 4.
On 10.7.1990 at about 8.00 p.m. a hue and cry was heard from the first floor of the house of accused number1 Saroj Suraj Panchal and PW1 to PW4, PW9 and PW12 went there and saw accused number.1 to 4 beating Sukumar Ray with iron rod and lathi and dragging him by tying his hands and legs through wooden staircase from the first floor to the ground floor and left him in the dange of Gobinda Mondal.
on 11.7.1990.
In order to prove its case the prosecution examined PW1 to PW19 and marked documents.
Accused number2 Tapan Panchal and accused number4 Swapan Panchal are sons of accused number1 Saroj Suraj Panchal.
The learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that the occurrence took place on account of sudden provocation and the act was companymitted by the appellants without premeditation and it would fall under First Exception to Section 300 IPC and the first appellant is 80 years old and the second appellant is 76 years old.
PW14 Dr. Kumud Ranjan Chatterjee companyducted the post mortem and found the following One abrasion 2x2 over left leg ii One bruise mark over left temple region with black eye iii One lacerated wound 4x1 X bone deep over left occipital region iv One lacerated wound 2x X bone deep over right temporal region On dissection he found multiple diffused and spotted haematoma on the scalp present, depressed fracture over right temporal occipital region with haemorhage inside the brain tissue.
NAGAPPAN, J. Leave granted.
No evidence was let in on the side of the defence.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. number207 of 2002.
He opined that death was caused due to injuries sustained particularly the head injury.
Aggrieved by the companyviction and sentence accused number.1 to 4 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal number207 of 2002 and the High Court by impugned judgment dated 12.5.2008 dismissed the appeal preferred by accused number.1 and 3.
PW1 Srikant Ray lodged a written companyplaint at 23.25 hrs.
The Trial Court found accused number.1 to 4 guilty of the charge of murder and sentenced them as narrated above.
