Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
D.Hira Kashinath Bairagi vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 July, 2023
17.07.2023
Court No.35
Item No. 1 CRA 100 of 2010
D.Hira Kashinath Bairagi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Mit Guha Roy.
... for the amicus curiae
Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy,
Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala,
Mr. Pratick Bose.
Ms. Rita Dutta.
... for the State
Mr. Roy, who appeared in this case on January 24, 2023, has
submitted today a report of the Superintendent of Presidency
Correctional Home dated February 1, 2023 as regards the status of the
appellant in the correctional home. Let the same be kept with the
record.
It is worth noting that previously also the similar report was
submitted by Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the State dated
February 2, 2023. The same was by the Inspector of Special Bench,
Chandannagar Police Commissionerate at Chandannagar.
Both the reports are indicating in an unequivocal manner that
the present appellant who was sentenced for seven years of rigorous
imprisonment along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- in Sessions Trial
no. 10 of 2009 under Sections 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code, by the
Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Hooghly, was released from the correctional home on April 13, 2016
after being incarcerated for a period of six (6) yeas two (2) months and
twenty nine (29) days. Two hundred and seventy two days (272) of his
sentence period was remitted under the applicable rules.
Taking into consideration the above two reports, let the matter be
disposed of, by the following order:-
The appellant was found guilty for an offence under Section
307/324 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial
No. 10 of 2009 vide judgment dated January 15, 2010 and was
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which he would be suffering
imprisonment for a further period of two years.
Informant lodged the FIR on January 27, 2008 alleging that on
the same date at about 11:30 a.m. in the morning when he was talking
with some person while standing on road, he was attacked with sharp-
cutting weapon, from his backside. He suffered sharp-cut injury and
could by somehow turning back in the injured condition, identify the
present appellant, to be the assailant.
Upon filing of such FIR, the police started investigation and the
same was culminated into filing of charge-sheet against the present
appellant.
Subsequently, the Trial Court has framed charges and conducted
trial in the matter. The evidence given by the victim is the principal
piece of material on which the prosecution has founded its case and
ultimately the Court has found that the prosecution could bring home
the charges against the assailant/appellant beyond the scope of all
reasonable doubt. Hence, sentenced the appellant in the manner, as
mentioned above.
On thorough scrutiny of the evidence of the victim/PW 1, the
prosecution's case is found to be duly substantiated.
PW 1 has withstood the cross-examination and there is nothing
on record to disbelieve or doubt the truthfulness of the evidence given
by the PW 1 in the Court. As a matter of fact, all the subsequent
witnesses have corroborated that of PW 1 only to suffice as regards the
acceptability of the evidence of the prosecution.
On careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it is found that the
evidence on record has been thoroughly scrutinized and discussed by
the Trial Court to leave no scope of any flaw in assessment of the same,
in its right perspective.
On the premises as above, this Court finds that the decision of
the Trial Court to find the present appellant guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 307 read with Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code is just proper and legal and requies no interference by this Court
at all.
Therefore, so far as the finding of guilt of the present appellant
and his conviction in the impugned judgment are concerned, this court
does not interfere to the same in this appeal.
However, while evaluating the sentencing part, the reports
mentioned as above, are taken into consdieration.
It is seen that two hundred and seventy two days from the period
of sentence has been remitted in adherence to the appropriate rules.
Before that the appellant had already undergone rigorous imprisonment
for six years two months and twenty nine days.
In consideration of these facts, this Court directs that the
appellant be sentenced with the period already undergone by him.
CRA 100 of 2010 is partly allowed.
Mr. Mit Guha Roy, learned amicus curiae has extended extensive
help and support in disposing of this case. His diligent and sincere
efforts are appreciated.
Let the High Court Legal Services Committee take necessary steps
to pay fees to the learned amicus curiae in accordance with the scale
applicable to Category-A lawyer, within a period of two months from the
date. Let a copy of this order be immediately forwarded to the
Secretary, State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), for necessary action.
All pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of.
Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties subject to compliance with all the requisite formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
