Raj Kumar Baral @ Raj Kumar Boral @ ... vs The State Of West Bengal
2022 Latest Caselaw 8233 Cal

           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  Criminal Application
                       Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
                And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi


                      CRA 252 of 2020

  Raj Kumar Baral @ Raj Kumar Boral @ Raju Baral

                            Versus

                The State of West Bengal


For the appellant : Mr. Sumanta Ganguly, Adv.


For the State    : Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan, Adv.
                 : Ms. Debjani Dasgupta, Adv.
                 : Ms. Mousumi Sarkar, adv.
                 : Ms. Baisakhi Chatterjee

Heard on         : 29th November, 2022

Judgment on      : 13th December, 2022




                        1
 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:



      1.

The appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction dated 15.05.2017 and order of sentence dated

17.05.2017 passed by learned Additional and Sessions

Judge, Chandannagar in connection with sessions trial

no. 42 of 2015 arising out of sessions case no. 42 of 2015

convicting the appellant under sections 302/201 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. The sister of the de facto complainant was married to

the appellant about 12-13 years ago as per Hindu

Customs and Rites. They had two sons out of the

aforesaid wedlock. However, the victim sister of the de

facto complainant was subjected to physical and mental

torture and used to be driven out from her matrimonial

home by her husband that is the appellant. The victim

continued with her marital life in consideration of the two

children. On 07.10.2014, the de facto complainant came

to know that the dead body of his aforesaid sister was

lying in a pond in her matrimonial village. Hearing this,

the de facto complainant, his father and others went to

the matrimonial village of his elder sister and found the

dead body of his elder sister floating in the Pathaner

pond owned by one Madan Mohan Das in a swollen. The

father of the de facto complainant informed the matter to

the police. Upon receipt of report in this regard, it was

learnt that the elder sister of de facto complainant was

killed by strangulation. Thereafter, the de facto

complainant lodged a written complaint with Tarakeswar

Police Station on 06.12.2014 indicating, inter alia, that

his sister was murdered by her husband and others and

thereby they threw away the dead body in the pond with

a view to causing disappearance of the evidence.

3. On the basis of such written complaint, Tarakeswar

Police Station case no. 265 dated 06.12.2014 under

section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was

started against the appellant. The police took up the

investigation and on completion of investigation

submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections of

the Indian Penal Code.

4. Accordingly, upon compliance of the provision of

under section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

in consideration of materials charged under section

498A/302/201 Indian Penal Code were framed against

the appellant on 19.08.2015 to which the appellant

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the charges so framed against the

appellant, prosecution examined as many as eleven

witnesses at the trial. The prosecution also tendered

documentary evidences.

6. The de facto complainant himself deposed as PW-1.

He has stated that his elder sister was married to the

appellant Rajkumar Boral and she had two sons out of

the aforesaid wedlock. PW1 used to visit her father's

house and according to her, she was not keeping well at

her matrimonial house. Her husband used to consume

liquor and Ganja and on protest, the appellant used to

assault her. PW1 has further stated that his sister is no

more alive. He was informed by one Sanatan Bera of

Sodepur village that his sister was dead. Being so

informed, PW1 along with his father, the said Sanatan

Bera, another villagers went to Talpur village and found

the dead body of his sister floating in Pathaner Doba.

PW1 lodged the written complaint. He also stated that

initially his father made a complaint. It was stated by

PW1 that his sister came to his house in the morning of

Bijay Dashami and returned in the afternoon to her

matrimonial house. After post-mortem examination, PW1

came to know that his sister was murdered by

strangulation. According to PW1, the victim is said to

have danced in the immersion procession where her

husband had threaten that it was her last dance. The

written complaint was scribed by one Biswajit Panja of

the village of PW1 and he signed the written complaint

after it was read over and explained to him. He proved

the written complaint (Exhibit 1) and the signatures of

himself and Bisajit Panja thereon. PW1 also proved his

signature on the inquest report (Exhibit 2/1). In his

cross-examination, PW1 stated that his sister herself

arranged her marriage with the appellant which was held

at Nalikul and none of his family members were present

in the marriage ceremony. Her sister was given in

marriage by one Vinod Patel. He has also stated that he

lodged a written complaint after two months of the

recovery of the dead body of his sister and he made no

complaint to any other authority as his father had

already made a written complaint. In reply to a question

by learned Court, PW1 stated that the immersion

procession had been passed by the side of Pathaner Doba

where the dead body was recovered. It was at a distance

of three-four minutes walk from the matrimonial house of

the deceased and there were no houses in between.

7. The father of the victim deposed as PW-2. He has

stated that the victim was his daughter and was married

to the appellant. He used to visit her matrimonial house

after her marriage. He has also stated that the victim was

not happy at her matrimonial house as her husband

used to consume country liquor and 'Bhang' and at

times, being assaulted by the appellant, she used to flee

to the house of PW 2 and her maternal uncle. The victim

had two sons out of her wedlock with the appellant. PW 2

also stated that his daughter was no more. He got the

news of her death from one Sanatan Bera, one of whose

relatives lived near the house of the appellant. He has

also stated that he received the news two days after the

death. Getting the news, PW 2 along with his two

brothers, Susil and Ranajit and a neighbor, Arup Bag

went to the matrimonial village of his daughter and found

her dead body floating in the pond named 'Pathaner

Doba' situated behind the house of the appellant at a

distance of one minute walk from his son-in-law's house.

8. PW 2 further stated that police came there and

recovered the dead body from the pond. Thereafter,

inquest was conducted. He proved his signature on the

inquest report (Exhibit 2/2). PW 2 then, went to

Tarakeshwar Police Station and lodged a complaint

scribed by Arup Bag. He proved his signature on the

complaint (Exhibit 3/1). Later on, his son lodged a

written complaint. PW 2, however, could not say how his

daughter died. In his cross examination, PW2 stated that

one Vinod Patel, who is not his blood relation, arranged

the marriage of his daughter. He admitted that he never

informed any authority that the appellant used to assault

his daughter after being intoxicated. He also stated that

he reached the spot before police and lodged a complaint

after noticing the dead body.

9. One of the neighbors of the appellant was examined

as PW 3. He identified the appellant in court and stated

that he was married 10/12 years thence. This witness is

hearsay witness so far as the incident is concerned. He

however, testified that the pond (Pathaner Doba) was at a

distance of 1 ½ /2 minutes walk from the house of the

appellant.

10. One member of local Gram Punchayat deposed as

PW 4 and identified the appellant. This witness is also a

hearsay witness having heard about the recovery of dead

body. He however, identified the seized nylon rope and

conch shell (Mat. Ext. I & II) and proved his signature on

the seizure list (Exhibit 4/1). In his cross examination,

PW 4 stated that he along with another witness signed on

the seizure list at his house.

11. PW 5 is another co-villager of the appellant. He also

did not see anything. He heard about the death of the

victim from local people. He also stated to have signed on

a seizure list at the house of Punchayat member and

proved his signature thereon (Exhibit 4/2) and identified

the seized articles.

12. Another neighbor of the appellant deposed as PW 6.

He stated that he knew the appellant and his wife. They

were married 12/13 years ago and had two children out

of the wedlock. He further stated that wife of the

appellant died 2 ½ years ago (from 24.01.17), however,

he did never find any problem between them. This

witness, though, testified that the floating dead body of

the victim was recovered from a pond but, he could not

say how she died.

13. The elder son of the victim has been examined as

PW 7. He has stated that his mother died in a pond near

his house. He did not see the dead body of his mother nor

did he know how she died. In answer to a question put by

the learned court, he stated that he along with his

brother and his parents went to sleep together in the

previous night.

14. Another neighbor of the appellant deposed as PW 8.

He did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated

that wife of the appellant died 2/3 years ago and her

dead body was found in the pond (Pathaner Pukur).

However, he could not say how she died.

15. The police officer who conducted inquest on the

dead body of the victim deposed as PW 9. He has stated

that on 07.10.2014, he conducted inquest over the dead

body of the wife of appellant Rajkumar Boral in

connection with Tarakeshwar Police Station U. D. Case

No. 76 dated 07.10.2014 and proved the inquest report

(Exhibit 2). He also sent the dead body to Serampore

Walsh Hospital for post mortem under a challan prepared

by him (Exhibit 5).

16. The autopsy surgeon has been examined as PW 10.

He has stated that on 07.10.2014, he conducted post

mortem examination on the dead body of one Mousumi

Boral wife of Raj Kumar Boral in connection with

Tarakeshwar Police Station U. D. Case No. 76 dated

07.10.2014. on examination he found:

1. Riogor Mortis was absent, Maggot was

present. Decomposition was started. Eyes

bulging. Pupil fixed and dilated.

Neck finding a) a continuous ligature mark

transversely placed around the neck

completely encircling the neck without any

gap. On dissection - it was hardened,

furrowed, injury to strap muscles and

extravasations of blood.

On dissection: Brain, lungs, liver, kidney all

were congested.

Tongue protruded and bitten by teeth.

Fracture of hyoid bone. Injury to cricoids

cartilage. Rib fractured right side of chest-

second and third ribs.

Time of death- more than 48 hours of

autopsy. Cause of death asphyxia due to

strangulation ante mortem and homicidal

in nature.

PW 10 noted that the post mortem examination was

started by him around 3.00 pm on 07.10.2014. He

proved the post mortem report (Exhibit 6).

17. The Investigating Officer of the case deposed as PW

11. He has stated that on 06.12.2014 he was entrusted

with the investigation of Tarakeswar Police Station Case

No. 265 dated 06.12.2014 under section

498A/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He proved

the formal First Information Report (Exhibit 7) and

endorsement of receipt of the written complaint from one

Surajit Bera (Exhibit 1/1). In course of investigation, he

examined the available witnesses including the informant

and recorded their statements under section 161 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. He also examined the file of

Tarakeswar Police Station U. D. Case No. 76 dated

07.10.2014 and seized articles in connection with the

said case. He further visited the place of occurrence and

prepared rough sketch map with index thereof (Exhibit 8

& 8/1). He also collected the post mortem report and

viscera, arrested the accused/appellant. PW 11 also

recovered nylon rope and bangles of the victim as per the

statement of the appellant. He has proved such

statement (Exhibit 9). He also sent the viscera for

chemical examination and collected the photographs

recorded during recovery of the offending nylon rope and

bangles (Exhibit 10 series). On completion of the

investigation, PW 11 submitted charge sheet against the

appellant Raj Kumar Boral under section 498A/302/201

of the Indian Penal Code. He also tendered the

photographs of dead body in connection with the U. D.

case (Mat. Ext. III series) and the nylon rope and bangles

(Mat. Ext. I & II).

18. In his cross-examination, PW 11 admitted that no

family member of appellant was cited as a witness in the

seizure list as there was none available at the relevant

time. He also stated that investigation revealed that the

accused/appellant was living with his wife and two

children.

19. The appellant/accused was examined under the

provisions of section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and in such examination, the appellant

admitted that his wife returned from immersion

procession in the night and from the following morning

she was missing. He also admitted that on the night

preceding the death of his victim wife, the appellant, his

wife and two sons went to sleep together. In his

examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, the appellant also admitted the recovery of afloat,

dead body of his wife from 'Pathaner Doba'.

20. It is on the basis of such evidence, the appellant

was held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable

under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

He was however, not convicted for the offence punishable

under section 498A of the said Code. Accordingly, the

appellant Raj Kumar Boral was sentenced to life

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default

to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months for the

offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of

Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple

imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable

under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

21. The appellant seeks to assail such judgment of

conviction and order of sentence.

22. From the purport of the evidence led by prosecution

it transpires that the brother and father of the victim (PW

1 & 2) received information to the effect that the dead

body of the victim was floating in a pond at her

matrimonial village. Going there, they found the dead

body. Police was informed and an inquest was conducted

over the dead body. Later, on the same day, post mortem

examination was conducted. The autopsy surgeon

deposed as PW 10. He found several injuries including

fracture of hyoid bone and ribs. He opined the cause of

death to be asphyxia due to strangulation which was ante

mortem and homicidal in nature. Therefore, on the basis

of above evidence, it can safely be held that the victim

Mousumi Boral wife of the appellant Raj Kumar Boral

died an unnatural homicidal death caused by

strangulation.

23. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant

that the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution attempted to establish that the victim

used to be subjected to torture by the appellant

physically and mentally as a prelude to the commission

of the crime but the same has not been supported by the

evidence led by the prosecution at the trial. It is argued

that the learned trial court proceeded on belief that

Bijaya Dashami in the year 2014 fell on 03.10.2014

whereas, it actually fell on 04.10.2014. It has been

contended that PW 11 has stated in his deposition that

according his investigation, that the victim visited her

father's house on 05.10.14. The post mortem report

conducted on 07.10 14 time of death has been opined as

'more than 48 hours of autopsy'. The appellant has

pointed out that PW 4 has stated that the incident took

place on Bijaya Dashami and the victim participated in

the immersion procession which fell on 4th of October

that year. PW 7 the minor son of the victim had stated

that he along with his parents and brother went to sleep

together in the night preceding the incident. It is the

contention that taking into account the aforesaid

evidences together, the incident i.e. the death of the

victim must have taken place in the night of the 4th

October, 2014 or early hours of 5th October. Therefore,

the case made out by the prosecution regarding death of

the victim in the night of October 05, 2014, does not

seem to be believable.

24. Learned Advocate for the state has submited that

the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution has

proved the death of the victim by strangulation and

findings in the impugned judgment, are well founded.

25. Having gone through the evidence as well as the

impugned judgment, it transpires that upon elaborate

discussion regarding the presence of maggots and the

time taken by the drowned dead body, the learned trial

court concluded that the medical evidence was not

inconsistent with the prosecution case. Moreover, PW 11

made the statement to the effect that the victim visited

her father's house on October 05, 2014 in his cross

examination. Such statement was made by him without

being referred to any document or the case diary. The

brother and father of the victim (PWs 1 & 2) and her son

(PW 7) who would have known such visit of the victim in

natural course have not supported the statement of PW

11. Investigation of the case was complete in January,

2015 and evidence of PW 11 was recorded on March 29,

2017. The statement made after such a long time without

reference to any document or case diary cannot be said to

be reliable.

26. However, the impugned judgment and order shows

that the appellant has not been convicted for the offence

punishable under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.

An evidence of torture and ill treatment might have

helped the prosecution to establish the circumstances

leading to the commission of the offences like 392/201 of

the Penal Code. But, no proof of such conduct by the

appellant, cannot be considered sufficient to absolve the

appellant from the other offences.

27. Another point that has been elicited by the

appellant, that there was a delay of over two months in

lodgment of the First Information Report. The floating

dead body of the victim was recovered on 07.10.2014

from a pond, whereas, the First Information Report was

lodged on 06.12.2014. According to the appellant, such

an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First

Information Report is fatal which tells upon the veracity

of the prosecution story. Such contention on behalf of the

appellant does not get much justification from the

evidence adduced by the prosecution.

28. It is fact, dead body of the victim was recovered on

07.10.2014 from a pond, and the First Information

Report was lodged on 06.12.2014. However, the First

Information Report (Exhibit 1) lodged by PW 1 contains a

statement to the effect that father of PW 1, Achin Bera

lodged a written complaint with Tarakeswar Police

Station on the very date of recovery of the dead body in

order to ascertain the cause of death and the second

complaint was lodged on 06.12.2014 upon

receipt/perusal of the post mortem report of the victim.

The maker of such complaint, PW 2 has stated in his

deposition, that when the dead body of his daughter was

lifted from the pond, he visited Tarakeswar police station

and made a complaint. PW 2 was confronted with the

copy of said complaint and he, identified his signature

thereon (Exhibit 3/1). It appears that it is this first

complaint submitted by PW 2, on the basis of which

Tarakeswar police station U. D. Case no. 76, dated

07.10.2014 was started under which the inquest was

conducted on the dead body. Therefore, the contention of

the appellant that the First Information Report was

lodged after 2 months of the recovery of dead body does

not stand. The alleged delay in lodging the complaint,

stands sufficiently explained.

29. The appellant has also pointed out that PW 2 Achin

Bera, inspite of lodging a complaint on 07.10.2014 did

not implicate the appellant or did not even disclose the ill

treatment and torture meted out by the appellant upon

the victim. It has also been argued that since there is no

evidence of hostility between the husband and wife, the

appellant cannot be held liable for the murder of his wife

in absence of direct evidence to that effect.

30. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution/State

that there is sufficient evidence on record which

completes the chain of events leading to the

circumstances pointing to the guilt of the appellant and

appellant only. The dead body of the victim was recovered

from a pond at her matrimonial village. At first, it was

pretended to be a case of drowning and after the post

mortem examination it turned out be homicidal with

specific case of strangulation resulting from fracture of

hyoid bone and ribs. There is convincing evidence, rather

admission on the part of appellant that the victim was

staying with the appellant and their children under the

same roof. The testimony of PW 7 emboldens the theory

of the last seen together. There is prosecution evidence

that the victim returned after participating in the

immersion procession in the night and since the following

morning, she went missing which was admitted by the

appellant in his examination under section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

31. We find enough force in the contention of the State

that in consideration of the chain of circumstances

emanating from the evidence as well as examination of

the appellant under section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the appellant was under obligation to explain

the circumstances leading to the death of his wife. In

support of his contention, learned Advocate for the State

relied upon the case of Bhim Sing & Anr. V. State of

Uttarakhand reported in (2015) 4 SCC 281. It was laid

down in the said case that,

"10. The High Court in the present matter

convicted Appellants 1 and 2, on the basis of

circumstantial evidence in the impugned

judgment. It has been established in leading

judicial precedents that where the

prosecution case is based on circumstantial

evidence, only the circumstantial evidence of

the highest order can satisfy the test of proof

in a criminal prosecution. To base a

conviction on circumstantial evidence put

forth by the prosecution should establish a

complete and unbroken chain of events so

that only one inference could be drawn out

from the same and if more than one

inference could be drawn, then the accused

should be entitled to the benefit of doubt."

32. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the aforesaid decision that,

"22. In the present case, the guilt or innocence of the accused has to be adduced from the circumstantial evidence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is more or

less well settled. This Court in a plethora of judgments has held that when the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 8 SCC 18: 2003 SCC (Cri) 186] is one of such cases. On the question of any reasonable hypothesis, this Court has held that if some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But in assessing the evidence, imaginary possibilities have no place. The Court considers ordinary human probabilities.

23. On circumstantial evidence, this Court has laid down the following principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487] : (SCC pp. 120-21)

"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or

should be and not merely 'may be' fully established,

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

33. Learned Advocate for the State also cited the

decision in the case of Praful Sudhakar Parab v. State

of Maharashtra (2016) 12 SCC 783 wherein it was

observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that,

31. We endorse the above findings of the High

Court. The present is not a case of solitary

evidence of last seen together but sufficient

evidence was led to complete the chain of

events and link the accused to the crime. The

High Court after elaborately considering all

the evidence on record has rightly dismissed

the appeal filed by the accused. We do not

find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is

dismissed."

34. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the

appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of

Subramaniam v State of TN (2009) 14 SCC 415

wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that,

"23. So far as the circumstance that they had

been living together is concerned,

indisputably, the entirety of the situation

should be taken into consideration. Ordinarily

when the husband and wife remained within

the four walls of a house and a death by

homicide takes place it will be for the

husband to explain the circumstances in

which she might have died. However, we

cannot lose sight of the fact that although the

same may be considered to be a strong

circumstance but that by alone in the absence

of any evidence of violence on the deceased

cannot be held to be conclusive. It may be

difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the

husband and the husband alone was

responsible therefore."

35. In the instant case, however, we have scrutinized

the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. We have

come to a conclusion that the victim was living together

with the appellant under the same roof with her children.

She has been last reported that she came back to her

matrimonial house after participating in the immersion

procession in the village, in the previous night and went

missing from the next morning. Such fact has been

admitted by the appellant in his examination under

section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also

admitted that the victim went to be bed that night with

the appellant and their children. There appears to be no

missing link in the chain of circumstances.

36. Was not the appellant under obligation to explain

the circumstances leading to the death of his wife who

spent the previous night under the same roof and in the

same room in terms of the provisions of section 106 of

the Indian Evidence Act? Surely, he was under such

obligation, in the light of the considered views laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bhim Sing

& Anr (Supra), Praful Sudhakar Parab (Supra) and

Subramaniam (Supra). We are constrained to conclude

that the defense has not been able to discharge the

obligation enjoined upon him.

37. Not only that, the post occurrence conduct of the

appellant also goes against the proposition of his

innocence. PW 1 & 2, being informed about the death of

the victim came to the matrimonial village of the victim

and her dead body was recovered with the help of police.

The evidence on record suggests that considerable time,

probably two or more days had elapsed since the death of

the victim. It has also come out from the evidence that

the victim returned in the night after participating in the

immersion procession in the village and went to bed

together with the appellant and their children. She went

missing since the following morning.

38. No explanation has been offered by the appellant as

how the victim went missing and what steps were taken

by him after his wife suddenly went missing from the

house which he ought to have taken as a man of ordinary

prudence in the circumstances. Such conduct on the part

of appellant surely gives rise to a proposition suggesting

his culpability in the incident.

39. The police complaint was first lodged on the day of

recovery of the dead body i.e. on 07.10.2014 and that too

without any statement implicating the appellant in the

incident. The appellant was arrested on 07.12.2014.

There is nothing in the evidence as to the steps taken on

the part of the appellant to trace out his missing wife

which he ought to have taken in the natural course

during this intervening period of two months.

40. The appellant has also questioned the recovery of

seized nylon rope and bangles belonging to the victim on

the ground that the seizure was made in presence of a

witness whose house was situated one Kilometre away

from the house of the appellant or the place from the

articles were recovered as shown by the appellant. The

evidence on record goes to show that the witnesses

signed on the seizure list at the house of PW 4 whereas

seizure was made from the house of the appellant after

over two months of the incident.

41. We are not placing much reliance upon the seizure

of nylon rope and bangles as it were recovered much after

the incident.

42. However, the chain of circumstances, post

occurrence conduct on the part of the appellant and

failure of the appellant to offer plausible explanation

regarding the circumstances leading to the death of his

wife, does suggest only one proposition which points to

the guilt of the appellant and appellant only to the

exclusion of all others.

43. Therefore, in the light of aforegone discussions, we

are of the view that the judgment of conviction and order

of sentences passed on 15.05.2017 and 17.05.2017

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Chandernagore, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2015 is well

founded and deserves to be affirmed. No interfere is

warranted.

44. Accordingly, the instant Appeal being Criminal

Appeal No. 252 of 2020 stands dismissed.

45. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during

investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the

substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant in

terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

46. Connected applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

47. Copy of the judgment along with Trial Court

Records be sent down to the appropriate court at once for

necessary compliance.

48. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying all

necessary legal formalities.

[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]

49. I agree.

[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]