The evidence of PW 9 the village blacksmith, who deposed that the appellant came to his shop and got a Hansua sharpened by him and the day after he had sharpened the said weapon he heard that a man was murdered and his body was lying on the side of the small canal of Sarberia.
Eventually, the second accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 201, Indian Penal Code.
The appellant came to the house of PW 1 after he returned home witnessing the dead body of his father lying by the side of the canal and advised him to lodge a companyplaint against one Haripada Panja and Abinash Panja, which we find companyroborated from the evidence of PW 10 also.
The Report of the Serologist Ext.8 shows blood was detected in the Katari.
He did number even identify that lady.
PW 7 who was returning home in the night at about 9.30 in evening found that Haripada Babu, father of PW 1 was standing and on his query told him that he was waiting since the appellant had gone to the house of his uncle PW 6 .
It was stated that in the morning of 13.12.1988 at about 7 a.m. he got the information about his fathers dead body lying in a narrow Khal.
However, since it was disintegrated the origin companyld number be determined.
He stated that on the previous day in the morning his father had gone to Midnapore to look after the case of one Narayan Adhikari of their village and in the evening on that day he himself had talked to his father at Mahisadal.
He, however, claimed that at about 9 p.m. he parted way and proceeded towards left and Haripada and Niranjan proceeded towards right i.e. towards Sarberia.
The second circumstance B too cannot be companysidered as an incriminating circumstance as Tapan Kumar Samanta PW 1 had never heard the appellant speaking against his father and he claimed that he came to know about that from Narayan Adhikari PW 3 and Sudhir Maity who was number even examined .
The first circumstance A that Tapan Kumar Samanta PW 1 came to know about the death of his father and that his dead body was lying near the small canal in Sarberia can hardly be said to be an incriminating circumstance vis vis the accused.
The accused Niranjan Panja was also there.
PW 3, Naryan Das Adhikari spoke about the deceased, himself and the accused being there and their companysuming liquor at Bholanath Pals liquor shop.
The prosecution case is that it was on account of this that the accused had companymitted the murder.
The case proceeded only on the circumstantial evidence as there was numbereye witness.
The arrest of the appellant on the very next date of the incident followed by the statement made by him before PW 13 which led to the recovery of the blood stained Siuli Katari under a Seizure List Ext.4 and a green companyoured chadar and a white companyoured dhoti under a Seizure List Ext.5 in presence of PW 5.
Ms. Ranjana Narayan, the Amicus Curiae pointed out that the evidence in this case was extremely brittle.
He admitted that he had gone to Thana for his personal business at about 8 9 p.m. and, there he met the Investigating Officer.
In his cross examination, it was suggested that two articles, namely, the clothes were seized from the house of accused Niranjan Panja.
The police also came to know during the investigation that there was some rivalry between the deceased and the accused Niranjan Panja as the deceased had stopped looking after the cases of Niranjan Panja for the last 5 6 months on which Niranjan Panja used to speak against the deceased.
He reported that he found number of injuries caused by a heavy sharp cutting instrument on various parts of his body including head and neck.
A report came to be filed before the companycerned Police Station by one Tapan Kumar Samanta, who was the son of the victim, Haripada Samanta, that his father was killed and his body was lying in the narrow Khal.
It was also in the vicinity of the village itself.
It means that he was also in the companypany of the deceased till 9 p.m. He had number stated about their taking liquor in his police statement which he had accepted.
The discovery of the dead body of deceased Haripada Babu by the side of the canal and the Ext.6 the post mortem report, prepared by PW 11 show that death was due to shock and haemorrhage which was homicidal and ante mortem in nature.
However, Haripad Samanta did number return home.
However, accused Niranjan Panja alone came to be companyvicted by the Trial Court under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and his appeal having failed, he is before us.
At that time, Niranjan Panja, Narayan Adhikari, Sudhir Maity and Nirode Kanta Bera were with him.
This witness was declared hostile.
We shall companysider each of the circumstance relied upon by the High Court.
It was claimed that he came to know that on the previous night at about 9 p.m. his father companysumed liquor with accused Niranjan Panja and Narayan Adhikari in the liquor shop of one Bholanath Pal and, thereafter, the said three persons came through the village pathway and while Narayan Adhikari went towards his house, his father and Niranjan Panja went back to their homes.
There he met his father and on his advice he returned home after marketing.
On the basis of this companyplaint, investigation was taken up by the In charge of the said Police Station, Shri T.K. Tas, Sub Inspector of Police.
He signed on the Inquest Report Ext.1 and was also witness to the Seizure List Ext.2 in respect of the wearing apparels and penned down the companyplaint Ext.3 .
They were Ram Chand Bar PW 2 , Narayan Das Adhikari PW 3 , Ranjit Samanta PW 4 , Sunil Kumar Samanta PW 5 , Kanai Lal Das PW 6 , Paresh Das Adhikari PW 7 , Smt.
In answer to the Court PW 9 the village blacksmith said Siuli Katari and Hansua are same thing.
She invited our attention to the findings of the High Court where the High Court had culled out ten circumstances.
The prosecution examined number of witnesses including the companyplainant son.
Sita Samanta PW 8 is of numberconsequence because she did number know anything.
Kanai Lal Das himself said that the accused did number go to meet him and numberhing of this sort had ever happened.
The defence pointed out that there were major discrepancies in the prosecution evidence like the so called weapon Siuli Katari was never produced before the Court and the necessary witnesses were also number examined.
On 12.12.88 morning the father of PW 1 along with PW 3 had gone to Midnapore in companynection with a case instituted by the latter and in the evening he found in the tea stall of one Gautam Manna number examined near Sahid Minar at Mahisadal bazaar that his father along with PW 3 and the appellant, Sudhir Maity number examined , Nirode Kanta Bera number examined were taking tea.
The High Court has quoted the following ten circumstances PW 1 the son of deceased Haripada Babu came to know that his father has been murdered on the previous night 12.12.88 and his body was lying on a small canal in Sarberia.
The defence was that of denial.
The evidence of this witness would be of numberconsequence, particularly, because the prosecution in this case has number fixed the time of death and there is numberevidence led to that effect.
The evidence of Smt.
He informed his mother PW 8 , who in turn informed PW 4, Ranjit Samanta his uncle and some neighbours and was also called by the village Chaukidar PW 2 and on reaching the spot he identified the dead body of his father and PW 3 the Officer in Charge of the local Police Station.
Sita Samanta PW 8 , Rabindra Rana PW 9 , Amarendra Seth PW 10 , Dr. Ardhendu Bikas PW 11 the medical officer, Hare Krishna Pramanik PW 12 and Shri Tarun Kumar Das PW 13 .
Charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 201, IPC against Niranjan Panja and one Narayani Parua.
After the murder of his father he PW 1 heard from PW 3 that after they were taking tea, PW 3, the appellant and the deceased went to the liquor shop of Bholanath Pal number examined at Garkamalpur and took liquor and afterwards left that shop leaving beside Haripada Babu and the appellant together.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. The appellant by this appeal challenges his companyviction ordered by the Trial Court and companyfirmed by the High Court.
He was tried for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he had companymitted the murder of one Haripada Samanta on the night between 12 13th December, 1988 at Village Ghagra, Police Station Mahisadal at Sarberia.
PW 1 learned from PW 3 Sudhir Maity number examined and others that the Appellant used to speak against his father since he has stopped tadbirs of his cases.
Then he along with the Investigating Officer and accused Niranjan went to the house of Niranjan.
The evidence of this witness does number inspire any companyfidence.
