His younger brother, Ajit Mondal, was also severely injured with a knife by his father.
Rival Submissions Shri Seeraj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime.
Bipin Kumar Mondal under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter called as the IPC .
The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2001, which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 13th July, 2002.
Sujit Mondal, PW 1, has lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar Police Station on 6.12.1999 giving full details of the companymission of the offence and naming his father as the person who companymitted the offence.
Sambhu Nath, PW 2, had deposed that he reached at about mid night when Sujit Mondal, PW 1, shouted and he came out from his house and on enquiry from PW 1, he learnt that his mother and brother had been murdered by the appellant with a sharp cutting knife.
The other witnesses who were close neighbours had supported the prosecution case and deposed that all of them reached the place of occurrence after hearing the shouts by Sujit Mondal and when they reached there, they were told by Sujit Mondal, PW 1, that his father had killed his mother and brother and inflicted injuries on his person.
The companyduct of the appellant i.e. absconding for a long time itself establishes the guilt of the appellant.
An Ejahar was lodged by the son of the appellant and other witnesses had been close neighbours and relatives residing in the same village.
Appellant pleaded number guilty and hence, he was put to trial.
Sujit Mondal, PW 1, was number sure as to who had companymitted the offence.
The depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, who are close relatives and neighbours who had reached the place of occurrence immediately after companymission of the offence, cannot be doubted as each of them has deposed before the Trial Court that Sujit Mondal, PW 1, told them that the appellant, his father has companymitted the crime.
All the witnesses had been put to cross examination and numberhing has been obtained to seek the credence of the evidence of any of them.
However, the injuries on the person of Sujit Mondal, PW 1, were found number to be so serious and he has failed to produce any certificate from Raninagar Public Health Centre or any other proof that he was admitted there.
The appellant was companyvicted under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.
Factual Matrix Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one Sujit Mondal, PW 1, lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar Police Station on 6.12.1999 stating that his father Bipin Kumar Mondal, appellant herein, came to their house at about midnight on 5.12.1999 and attacked his mother, Usha Rani Mondal, with a knife and inflicted severe injuries on her person.
So, any other person companyld have companymitted the crime.
He received injuries on his head and hands and he had to escape out of fear.
PW 1 was also injured on his head and hands.
The depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, the so called related persons or neighbours are merely based on hearsay as numbere of them had seen the companymission of offence.
After companysidering the entire evidence on record and taking it into companysideration along with the defence taken by the appellant, which had been only to the extent that he was innocent, the trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Trial Court companysidered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and came to the companyclusion that petition of companyplaint had been written by Saidul Islam, PW 10, on the instructions of Sujit Mondal, PW 1, and both of them supported the prosecution case in Court.
Thus, he was awarded the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 6 months RI under Section 323 IPC, however, it was held that both the sentences would run companycurrently vide judgment and order dated 12.6.2001.
On the basis of the said Ejahar, the police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302/307 IPC.
Saidul Islam, PW 10, was a resident of another village and had gone to Raninagar Public Health Centre in companynection with the treatment of his relation and there he was requested by Sujit Mondal, PW 1, to write the said Ejahar Exh.
The appellant just pleaded innocence and numberhing else.
Sujit Mondal, PW 1, had deposed that he had gone to the same Public Health Centre at Raninagar and was admitted for treatment for one day.
However, numbere of the other witnesses have stated that when they reached the place of occurrence after hearing the hue and cry of Sujit Mondal, PW 1, Ajit Mondal was alive and had died after some time.
The evidence to the effect that at the time of companymission of offence, the lamp was burning and there was sufficient light, is also number free from doubt.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellant.
When he went to save his mother, he was also attacked by his father.
Dilip Kumar, PW 4, Binay Mondal, PW 6, Anukul Chandra, PW 7 and Prasanna Kumar, PW 8, also deposed to the same effect.
The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, this appeal.
On hearing the hue and cry made by Sujit Mondal, PW 1, his neighbours came and in the meantime his father ran away.
The other witnesses who were close relatives and neighbours of the appellant have supported the prosecution case.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Dilip Kumar, PW 4, had deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal died within a short time after his arrival.
There are material companytradictions in their depositions.
There is numbersuggestion by Sujit Mondal, PW 1, that he was number sure as to who has companymitted the offence, as in cross examination he denied such a suggestion stating that it was number a fact that he told the name of the assailant as his father by suspicion.
On the companytrary, Shri Avijit Bhattacharjee, learned companynsel for the State, has opposed the appeal and vehemently submitted that Sujit Mondal, PW 1, had numberdoubt or suspicion in his mind that his father had companymitted the offence.
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
of the victims if he was innocent.
The appellant was an anti social element and many persons had a grudge against him.
There was numbermotive for companymitting the crime and the weapon with which the offence had been companymitted has never been recovered.
The recovery of knife used in the companymission of offence companyld number be made because the appellant remained absconding for a long time.
No reason came forward in the cross examination or otherwise as to why a son would depose against his father.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No.
He did number even disclose as under what circumstances he had absconded from his family home and had been living somewhere else, where he had been at the time of companymission of offence and why did he number attend any ritual i.e. funeral etc.
During cross examination, numberhing companyld be elicited from him seeking the credence of his statement.
352 of 2001 by the High Court of Calcutta, by which the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant and upheld the companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.
4 of 2001 State Vs.
