Bankim @ Banku Pramanik & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 8683 Cal

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                          APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-

HON'BLE JUSTICE CHITTA RANJAN DASH
              AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN

                        C.R.A. No. 43 of 2010
                                With
            IA No. CRAN 2 of 2011 (Old No. CRAN 32 of 2011)

                  Bankim @ Banku Pramanik & Ors.
                               -Versus-
                   The State of West Bengal & Anr.

      For the Appellant        :     Mr. Pratik Kr. Bhattacharyya, Adv.
      For the State            :     Mr. Swapan Banerjee , Adv.
                               :     Mr. Suman De, Adv.

      Last Heard on            :      16.12.2022
      Judgment on              :       23.12.2022

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -

1.

The instant Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated

18.12.2009 and 19.12.2009 as passed by the Learned Additional Sessions

Judge 1st Court, Purulia in Session Trial no. 21/2008 arising out of

Sessions Case No. 169/2008. By the impugned judgment learned trial

court found the charge sheeted accused persons guilty under Sections

302/34of the Indian Penal Code and, thus, sentenced them to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for life each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-

each i.d. to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years each.

2. The convicts felt aggrieved and, thus, preferred the instant appeal.

3. For effective disposal of the instant appeal the facts leading to

initiation of Sessions Trial No. 21/2008 is required to be dealt in a

nutshell.

4. One Dukhan Pramanik, son of Kalicharan Pramanik of Village

Mukundapur under P.S.- Joypur, District- Purulia lodged a written

complaint on 07.08.2008 with the IC Joypur P.S. stating, inter alia, that

on the said day at about 9 AM when his sister Hemu Pramanik was

returning to her home after taking bath in a local pond, she was abused

in filthy languages by one of his neighbours namely; Bankim Pramanik @

Banku Pramanik as well as his other family members. It is the further

version of the de facto complainant that after returning home his sister

intimated the entire incident to her mother. However, at that time his

father as well as the de facto complainant were not at home since both of

them were at Joypur in their respective places of employment. It is the

further version of the de facto complainant that after returning home his

father Kalicharan Pramanik came to learn about the aforementioned

incident and then he went to the house of the accused persons to

ascertain as to why they had misbehaved with his daughter and at that

time one Bhadu Pramanik, wife of aforementioned Bankim Pramanik

started abusing his father with filthy languages and started pulling his

hands and immediately thereafter the said Bankim Pramanik assaulted

the father of the de facto complainant on his head by using a spear to

which his father suffered bleeding injuries and fell down on earth and

thereafter the accused Lalu Pramanik gave a blow of shovel (shabol) on

the head of the father of the de facto complainant and Kartick Pramanik,

another accused also assaulted his father by a bamboo stick on the head

of his father as well on his person. It is the further version of the de facto

complainant that on account of such assault the victim i.e. the father of

the de facto complaint succumbed to the aforementioned bodily injuries.

In the written complaint it has also been stated that in order to blame the

de facto complainant, the victim and his family members, some of the

accused persons wounded themselves by self-inflicting injuries.

5. On the basis of the aforementioned written complainant Joypur P.S.

Case No. 51/2008 dated 07.08.2008 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was

started, investigation was taken up and on completion of the same

charge sheet under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C was submitted against all

the accused persons.

6. After commitment of the instant case, the trial court record was

sent to the Learned Trial Judge, being an Additional Sessions Judge for

trial and disposal and it reveals from the trial court record that on

11.12.2008 the learned trial court after considering the entire materials

as placed before him framed charges under Sections 302/ 34 and 201/34

I.P.C against the present four appellants. Since before the Learned Trial

Court the present four appellant pleaded their innocence and claimed to

be tried, the trial proceeded.

7. On perusal of the entire trial court record it reveals that, for

bringing home the charges, the prosecution before the trial court has

examined 15 witnesses in all and several documents and materials have

been exhibited. Trial court record reveals further that after due

appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both oral and

documentary, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and

order of conviction against the present four appellants which has been

assailed before this Court.

8. Heard learned Amicus Curiae as appointed by this Court at length

as well as the Ld. Advocate for the State.

9. For proper appreciation of the facts and law as involved in the

instant appeal, we propose to deal with the evidence of those prosecution

witnesses which are necessary for the effective disposal of the instant

appeal.

10. The de facto complainant being the son of the deceased has been

examined as PW1. According to the prosecution, PW1 is also an ocular

witness. In his examination-in-chief PW1 has been declared hostile by the

prosecution in course of his cross-examination on behalf of the

prosecution. However the PW1 stated categorically that on the relevant

day and hour the present appellants being the accused persons abused

her sister in filthy languages. He stated further that after returning from

his place of employment, his father came to learn about the entire

incident from his sister and thereafter he went to inform such incident to

the other villagers and on his way he was intercepted by one Bhadu

Pramanick who caught hold of his father from back side and used filthy

languages towards him. It is his further evidence that thereafter Bankim

Pramanick assaulted his father on his head by a Spear (ballam) while the

other accused persons namely; Kartick Praminick assaulted his father

with a big size stick and Lalu Pramaick gave a blow on the head of his

father with a shovel. It is his further version that on account of such

grievous injury his father died at the spot.

11. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 it reveals to us that PW1

remained very much consistent even in his cross-examination and on

being asked he stated categorically that on the relevant day and hour he

found the occurrence of the crime.

12. PW2 is a co-villager of the deceased as well as of the informant. In

course of his examination-in-chief he stated that on the relevant day and

hour he was sitting by the road side dawa (verandah) adjacent to his

house from where the P.O is visible which is at a distance of 30/35 cubits

away. He stated that he noticed Banku, Kartik and Lalu were assaulting

the victim while Bhadu caught hold of the victim. It is his further version

that the three male members were armed with shovel, spear and lathi and

they mercilessly assaulted the victim at random. He stated further that

seeing such incident he rushed to the spot and asked the assailants not

to assault the victim any further as he had already expired. He stated that

his statement was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. PW2 was cross-

examined at length from the side of the defence but nothing could be

elicited form his mouth which may be helpful to the accused persons.

13. PW3 is another co-villager who claimed that his house is situated

50 cubits away from the P.O. In his examination-in-chief he stated that

on the relevant day and hour he noticed a chaos in his door step on Kuli

Road and he noticed that Banku, Lalu and Kartick were assaulting the

victim at random to which the victim fell down on the earth. He tried to

intervene but the accused persons did not stop their assault upon the

victim and thereafter the accused persons fled away. He further stated

that after commission of the crime the accused persons rubbed the

offending weapons with the earth to remove the blood stain marks on the

weapons. He is also a witness to the alleged recovery of the weapon of

offence. He is also an inquest witness. He too was cross examined by the

defence extensively but all the efforts of the accused persons remained

futile since nothing contradictory revealed from him which may be of

prejudicial to the prosecution.

14. PW5 is another co-villager of the informant and the deceased. He

stated that on the relevant day and hour he came out from his house and

noticed that Lalu assaulted the victim by shovel while Banku assaulted

the victim with spear and at that time Bhadu caught hold of the victim

while Kartick assaulted the victim with lathi. He stated further that on

account of assault the victim succumbed to his injuries at the P.O. In his

cross-examination PW5 also remained very consistent.

15. PW8 is the daughter of the victim. She stated that on the relevant

day and hour when she was following her father on the Kuli Road at that

time three accused persons whom she identified during her examination-

in-chief called her father and started assaulting him with spear, shovel

and lathi. Resultantly her father died on the spot. She further stated that

when accused Bhadu caught hold of her father. She too could not be

shaken in the cross-examination.

16. PW11 is another ocular witness. He being the relative of the

deceased stated that on the relevant day and hour he found Banku, Lalu

and Kartick assaulted the victim with spear, shovel and lathi while the

accused Bhadu caught hold of the victim. It is his further version that on

account of such assault by the accused persons, the victim succumbed to

his injuries at the P.O.

17. The evidence of PW14 i.e. the Autopsy Surgeon in considered view

of us is very relevant for effective disposal of the instant appeal. In course

of his examination-in-chief PW 14 stated that while doing the post

mortem examination over the person of the deceased, he found the

following-

"1. Punctured wound about size of '50' paisa coin just behind the left angle of mandible at upper neck. Blood coming out form the wound. On dissection, extensive intra-muscular haemorrhage present.

2. Multiple abrasion right forehead and frontal region.

3. Swelling on the left side of head.

4. Bleeding from nostrils."

He in course of his examination-in-chief further stated the following

which are reproduced herein in verbatim for proper assessment :-

"After dissection no.1 subcutaneous haemotoma left temporal and right frontal region, (2) Extensive intra-cerebral haemorrhage and clot present.

Note: (i) Articles, clothings and blood sample handed over to escorting constable

(ii) Injury no.1 may be caused by sharp pointed end of a hard substance and like 'shabal' and injury nos. (2) &(3) may be caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi,

(iii) Injury no.1 and head injury both are sufficient to cause death of the deceased.

So, in my opinion, case of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the above injuries ante mortem and homicidal in nature."

18. On comparative study of the consistent evidence of PW1, PW2,

PW3, PW5, PW8 and PW11 vis-à-vis the evidence of PW14 it reveals to us

that the evidence of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses got due

corroboration from each other as well as from the evidence of PW14 i.e.

the Autopsy Surgeon.

19. On perusal of the evidence of the aforementioned eye witnesses, it

appears to us that the evidence of the said eye witnesses are found to be

reliable and believable because in their respective examination-in-chief

they are found to be honestly, interested in ensuring that the real culprits

are punished. In course of their respective cross-examinations as well as

in course of the argument before this Court nothing could be suggested

on behalf of the present appellants that the said prosecution witnesses

conjointly adduced false evidence to implicate the present appellants

falsely on account of any previous animosity and/or village enmity. Such

being the position, this Court finds no cogent reason to disbelieve the

testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 , PW5, PW8 and PW11.

20. Admittedly out of the said prosecution witnesses PW1, PW8 and

PW11 are related witnesses however, simply because they are related

witnesses their evidence cannot be thrown over board since the primary

endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. This view was

taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the reported decision of

Dharnidhar vs. State of U.P reported in (2010) 3 C CrLR (SC)636.

21. In view of the discussion made hereinabove this Court finds no

cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgement.

22. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. The impugned

judgement and order dated 18.12.2009 and 19.12.2009 as passed by

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court Purulia in Sessions Trial

No.21/2008 arising out of Sessions Case no.169/2008 is hereby affirmed.

23. The bail bond as given by the appellants pursuant to the order

dated 12.05.2010 and 15.05.2014 as passed by this Court while

disposing of CRAN nos.1391 of 2010 and 1661 of 2014 respectively is

hereby cancelled. The present appellants namely; Bankim Pramanick @

Banku Pramanick, Lalu Pramanick, Bhadu Pramanick and Kartick

Pramanick are hereby directed to surrender before the learned trial court

within a fortnight from the date of communication of this judgement to

suffer remaining part of their sentence. Learned trial court is hereby

directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the present

appellants namely; Bankim Pramanick @ Banku Pramanick, Lalu

Pramanick, Bhadu Pramanick and Kartick Pramanick if they do not

comply with the order of this Court within the time framed.

24. With the aforementioned observations the instant appeal is

disposed of.

25. Let a copy of this judgement along with LCR be sent down at once.

26. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be

given to the parties on completion of usual formalities.

I agree.

(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.)                          (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)