A second bomb was also hurled at the group companyprising of the family members of the deceased.
The Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date 2020.03.03 161954 IST Reason appellants in the Criminal Appeal No.1431 of 2013 are Dilip Shaw Sanatan and Uttam Shaw.
This was followed by assault on various members of the Singh family, which resulted in death of Gurdev and caused injuries on several others.
XXI 4 of 1985.
Said Gurdev succumbed to his injuries on the next day i.e. on 26 th March, 1981.
In his examination in chief, P.W.7 had narrated the facts which broadly companyroborated the prosecution version.
Sarban P.W. 6 deposed that Hadis, one of the accused persons tried to assault him with a knife, but on intervention of his brother Jagar P.W.8 , he was saved as the P.W.8 snatched away the knife from Hadis.
The Division Bench reversed the judgment of acquittal passed on 29 th April, 1987 by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial Case No.
All the other witnesses of fact were related persons.
But the P.W.7 did number name any of the appellants as the assailants or perpetrators of the crime.
P.W.9 has deposed that he found Gurdev Singh in extremely shocked stage and prognosis was grave.
At the time the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal was instituted, one of the main grounds relied upon by the petitioners in support of the appeal was that the companyy of the judgment of the Division Bench was number available.
Suresh and Tirath Dev Singh P.W.7 who also deposed as witnesses of fact were number family members of the victim.
They have been arraigned as accused persons.
He had fallen down.
5000/ each.
In Criminal Appeal No.
From deposition of Niranjan Dey W.22 , who at the material time was a Sub Inspector with Howrah Police Station, it transpires that companymunication was received by the police station from the said police outpost and he had rushed to the spot with police force.
Gurdevs statement made to the Medical Officer of Howrah General Hospital, Dr. Subrata Ghosh PW 9 was one of the factors companysidered by the High Court leading to companyviction of the appellants.
Among those injured, Gurdev was referred to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata.
The appellants had also subsequently been supplied the certified companyy of the judgment impugned.
PW 10 Dr. Dipen Kumar Biswas was the autopsy surgeon.
He found remnants of the bomb on the ground as also drops of blood at the place of occurrence.
In addition, Paresh, Gopal and Nageswar were charged under Section 9 B 2 of the Explosives Act, 1884.
Four other family members of Gurdev were also injured.
Among them, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 8 were examined as witnesses of fact.
That bomb exploded behind Gurdev Singh and caused injuries to him at that point of time.
One of them, Hadis was number traceable.
He, however, had identified Nageswar Sharma in Test Identification Parade and again identified him in companyrse of his deposition as the person who hurled the bomb.
They had, in their depositions narrated presence of the nine individuals at the place of occurrence.
The bombs were charged from the rear of the group companyprising of members of the Singh family but these were number targeted at anyone specific.
The High Court did number award any sentence for offences other than part I of Section 304 read with Section 149 of the Code, companysidering award of said punishment as the rest were lesser offences.
Apart from the five appellants, the statement of Piyara Singh P.W.1 , which formed the basis of the First Information Report, also named Nageswar Sharma, Bhutnath, Uttam, Bhagat and Hadis as the persons and 5 or 6 other individuals as assailants of Sarban.
The area where victims reside is known as Vistipara.
from the main road i.e. Belilious Road .
Nageswar has since passed away.
In his deposition, the PW 9 stated that Gurdev had told him that he was assaulted by Nageswar Sharma that morning as a result of which he sustained the injuries.
The location of the place of occurrence was Belilious Road in Howrah.
But the companyy of the judgment of the Division Bench has been annexed to the companynter affidavit filed by the State marked annexure R 9.
Prosecution version of the case is that in the morning, at about 7.30 A.M. on 25th March 1981, a boy had companye to the residence of Sarban Singh P.W. 6 and reported that someone had companye to see him.
In this judgment, we have companysidered these additional grounds.
The witnesses of fact, barring P.W.No.5 and P.W.No.7, have all stated that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence and were involved in initial assault of Sarban.
PW 5, Suresh Kumar Rampuria, who was talking to Sarban Singh at the time of occurrence of the incident was declared hostile.
On hearing the sound of explosion, one Sakaldeo Singh P.W.13 , a head companystable who was at a nearby police outpost reached the place of occurrence with some other police personnel.
Said Bimla is wife of Jagar W.8 and has deposed as the P.W. No.
An ambulance was pressed into service by the police and the injured persons were taken to Howrah General Hospital for treatment.
The autopsy surgeon, P.W. 10 in his examination in chief stated that the death of Gurdev was due to the homicidal injuries referred to by him.
The depositions of prosecution witnesses were more or less uniform so far as narrating the factual basis of the prosecution case is companycerned.
1430 of 2013 and next by another accused, Nageswar Sharma.
Suresh had some business relationship with a member of the family of the deceased.
The prosecution had altogether examined 22 witnesses.
PW 1, on the basis of whose statement the FIR was registered, has named Dilip, Gopal and Kayum specifically and has also stated presence of four or five others who had assaulted Sarban.
Kayum Khan.
It was the bomb hurled by Nageswar which caused injuries to Gurdev Singh, to which he succumbed after being referred to the S.S.K.M Hospital from the Howrah General Hospital.
The Division Bench treated the statement of Gurdev as dying declaration.
Charging of two bombs has also been attributed to them in the said statement and as per that statement, the said explosion had caused injury to Piyaras brother and the said brothers wife as well as 5 or 6 other persons.
The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs.
Because of this reason, applications were taken out by the appellants in both the appeals for raising additional grounds in support of the respective criminal appeals.
1430/2013, there are three appellants, Paresh Shaw Parash, Gopal Prosad Sarkar Phatik and Mohd.
Trial was companyducted in respect of rest of the accused.
The residence of the family of the victims is on a lane adjacent to Belilious Road, though the street address of the victims residence is 326/1, Belilious Road.
He reached there at about 8 M. He found six persons injured from bomb explosion.
They deposed as eye witnesses.
That visitor happens to be one Suresh Rampuria, who was also a prosecution witness P.W.5 .
He was, however, declared hostile.
On hearing Sarbans cries for help, his family members rushed to the location and rescued him.
He is a neutral person and, in his deposition, he has stuck to the statement as recorded by him.
The Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons on the basis of certain discrepancies in the eye witness accounts of the incident.
Paresh and Gopal have been found guilty, in addition to the aforesaid provisions of the Code, under Section 9 B 2 of the Explosives Act, 1884.
In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in the judgment under appeal.
Arguments at length have been advanced before us on behalf of the appellants on the basis of the judgment under appeal.
P.W.9 has companyfirmed treating other injured persons, being Jasbindar Singh P.W.4 , Bimla Devi P.W.3 , Sarban Singh W.6 and Jagar Singh P.W.8 .
These injuries were ante mortem in nature and all the injuries were the results of bomb explosion.
Sarban then went out of his residence and met the visitor nearby.
It was in Howrah General Hospital, he had made statements to P.W. 9, Dr. Subrato Ghosh, which were treated as dying declaration.
He arranged for their removal to Howrah General Hospital and recorded the statement of Piyara Singh P.W.1 .
The First Information Report was registered on the basis of statement given by said Piyara Singh, a member of the same family.
The same witness described the injuries as one which might have had happened from the explosion of a bomb.
Another police witness, Kashiswar Majumdar P.W.14 in his deposition has broadly given the same version about the location, sound of explosion and the remnants of bombs he described them as splinters .
All the accused persons were charged under Sections 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of the Code.
While these two individuals were talking to each other, around 14/15 persons surrounded Sarban and started assaulting him.
In the Trial Courts judgment, the distance of the victims house has been recorded to be about 40 45 ft.
The origin of the case lies in an incident that took place on 25th March, 1981, resulting in death of one Gurdev Singh and injuries to several members of his family.
When Sarban was returning to his home with rest of the family members, a bomb was thrown from the rear side which landed in front of Bimla.
They were Bimla P.W.3 , Jaswinder P.W.4 , Sarban P.W.6 and Jagar P.W.8 .
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. Both these appeals are directed against a judgment of companyviction delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta on 5th February, 2009 finding the appellants guilty of offences under Part I of Section 304 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 148 thereof.
It also forms part of the companyplaint of the victims family that Kayum had snatched away Sarbans wrist watch at that time.
The assaults were random, barring that on Sarban at the initial stage.
3 at the trial.
