Israfil Haque Sarkar @ Sk vs The State Of West Bengal
2023 Latest Caselaw 3759 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
                         CRA 02 of 2008

                            Israfil Haque Sarkar @ Sk.

                                    Versus.

                            The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant :     Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya , Adv.

For the State :         Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, APP.,
                        Md. Kutubuddin, Adv.,
                        Mr. Santanu Deb Roy, Adv.

                                      With
                                 CRA 439 of 2008
                                     Rafiqul Sk.
                                        Vs.
                                 State of West Bengal
For the appellant:      Ms. Shabana Hasin, Adv.,
                        Mr. Koustava Ratan Chatterjee, Amicus Curiae.

For the State:          Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta , APP.,
                        Md. Kutubuddin , Adv.,
                        Mr. Santanu Deb Roy, Adv.

Last Heard on           :        15.05.2023
Judgment on             :        09.06.2023

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -


1.

The instant two appeals arise out of a common judgement of

conviction dated 06.10.2007 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2007 as

passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast

Track Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, in Sessions Trial no.

18/April/2007 arising out of Sessions Serial no. 343/2007 whereby and

whereunder the said court by the impugned judgement found both the

accused persons namely; Rafiqul Sk. and Israfil Haque Sarkar @ Sk. guilty

for committing offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and by the impugned

order of sentence dated 08.10.2007, sentenced both the convicts to suffer

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i.d to suffer S.I for one

month each with a direction that the period of detention shall be set of

under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. Convict Rafiqul Sk. felt aggrieved and thus preferred the Criminal

Appeal no.439 of 2008. Similarly Israfil Haque Sarkar @Sk. also felt

aggrieved with the impugned judgement and order of sentence and thus

preferred Criminal Appeal no.02 of 2008.

3. Since both the aforementioned two appeals have arisen out of the self

same judgement and order of sentence, we propose to dispose of both the

appeals by a common judgement.

4. For effective disposal of the instant two appeals the facts leading to

the initiation of the aforesaid sessions trial are required to be dealt with in a

nutshell.

5. One Giasuddin Mondal, son of Noor Md. Mondal of village Moktarpur,

P.S Domkal, District Murshidabad lodged a written complaint dated

08.12.2006 with the I/C Domkal Police Station, District Murshidabad

stating inter alia, that on 07.12.2006 at about 10 a.m. his minor son Habil

Mondal (aged about 12 years) went to Paschim Math of the self same village

along with two black coloured buffaloes for the purpose of grazing in the

field. It was his further version that since 7 p.m his said son with two

buffaloes did not return from the grazing field and thus finding no other

alternative the de facto complainant and his inmates started searching for

his son and his two buffaloes but their attempt remained futile. It was the

further versions of the de facto complainant in the said written complaint

that on 08.12.2006 at about 3:30 a.m some people came to his house by

riding a Maruti Van from village Choddomile and from the said villagers of

Choddomile the de facto complainant came to learn that the villagers of the

village Choddomile had detained one person with two buffaloes in their said

village.

6. On getting such information the de facto complainant with some of

his co-villagers went to the said village Choddomile and found his two

buffaloes in tied condition and one person namely; Rafiqul Sk. of Village

Moktarpur who was also detained in the said village. It was the further

version of the de facto complainant that on being asked the said detained

person Rafiqul Sk. disclosed to them that he and one Israfil Haque Sarkar @

Sk. of Moktarpur village conjointly induced his said son Habil Mondal and

thereafter took him and his two buffaloes at Bhatsala Math (field) and

thereafter both the aforesaid persons murdered his minor son Habil Mondal

by throttling by using a nylon rope and Gamcha (napkin). It has also been

disclosed in the said written complaint that as per the version of the said

Rafiqul Sk. the de facto complainant and his co-villagers took the said

Rafiqul Sk. to Bhatsala Math (field) and as per showing of the said Rafiqul

Sk. the dead body of Habil Mondal was recovered from the mustard field of

one Asmat Sk. of village Bhatsala.

7. On the basis of the said written complaint Domkal P.S Case no. 266 of

2006 dated 08.12.2006 under Sections 364/379/411/302/34 IPC was

started.

8. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge

sheet was submitted under Sections 364/379/411/302/34 IPC against both

the F.I.R named accused persons.

9. After commitment and transfer the learned trial court on perusal of

the entire materials as placed before him framed charges under Sections

302/34 IPC as against the charge sheeted persons and since both the

charge sheeted accused persons pleaded their innocence and claimed to be

tried, the aforementioned trial proceeded.

10. Trial Court Record reveals that for bringing home the charges as

against the aforementioned two accused persons the prosecution has

examined 18 witnesses in all and several documents have been exhibited on

their behalf. Though before the learned trial court no evidence was adduced

on behalf of the aforementioned two accused persons but from the trend of

cross-examination and from the answers as given by the two accused

persons in their respective examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C it reveals

that the defence case is based on clear denial and false implication.

11. For effective disposal of the instant two appeals we shall discuss

about the evidence of those prosecution witnesses only which are relevant in

our estimation.

12. On conjoint perusal of the evidence of PW19 (Autopsy Surgeon) vis-à-

vis the post mortem report of the deceased being Exhibit 9 it reveals that

following is the version of PW19 in his examination-in-chief:-

"On examination I found general height was 4'1/2". Rigormotis is absent. A nilon rope was around the neck. Eyes was closed. Death was due to Aspectia with vagal inivition and cardiac arrest consistence with throatling. In my opinion death was antimortem and homicidal in nature. This is the said report prepared and signed by me. The same is marked as Exbt. 9."

In course of his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from the

mouth of PW19 from which an inference can be drawn that the opinion of

PW19 being the Autopsy Surgeon of the dead body of the victim is wrong or

is otherwise. In view of such we hold that the learned trial court is

absolutely justified in holding that the death of the victim was homicidal in

nature.

13. In order to come to a logical finding as to whether the learned trial

court is at all justified in holding both the appellants herein guilty of

committing of murder of Habil Mondal or not a look to the deposition of the

relevant prosecution witnesses as have been recorded by the learned trial

court is very much necessary.

14. PW1 is the de facto complainant and the father of the deceased and on

perusal of his entire deposition more specifically his examination-in-chief it

appears to us that his examination-in-chief is merely reproduction of his

version as made by him in his written complaint. PW1 was extensively

cross-examined by the defence but nothing could be elicited in his cross-

examination which is contrary to his deposition as given by him in his

examination-in-chief.

15. PW2 is a co-villager of PW1 and in his examination-in-chief he

testified that on the relevant day at about 4p.m when he was coming back

from market he found that the victim Habil was grazing buffaloes and cows

on a land and at that time he also noticed that accused Rafiqul was

standing there. It was his further version that about 8/9 p.m on the self

same day he came to learn that the minor son of P.W1 i.e. Habil went

missing with his two buffaloes and on the next day morning he heard that

Rafiqul along with two buffaloes of Habil were apprehended at Village

Chaddomile and on the self same day, he again came to learn that the dead

body of Habil was recovered in Village Bhatsala at about 3 p.m.

16. PW3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and in course of his

cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution noting could be elicited from

his mouth which may be helpful for the prosecution.

17. PW4 being another co-villager of PW1 who in his examination-in-chief

stated that on 07.12.2006 at about 2 p.m he found Rafiqul and Israfil were

gossiping with Habil. He further testified when accused Rafiqul was brought

from village Choddomile on the next day, he disclosed before him and others

that he (Rafiqul) and Israfil murdered Habil but in his cross-examination he

categorically testified that he is stating the said incident for the first time

before the Court. In his cross-examination he further testified that in this

regard he had no conversation with the police previously. In view of such, we

consider that evidence of PW4 has lost its significance in view of the

aforementioned omission which tantamounts to a material contradiction in

view of the provisions of Section 145 read with explanation of Section 162 of

the Cr.P.C.

18. PW5 being another co-villager of PW1 in his examination-in-chief

testified that on 07.12.2006 at about 2/2:30 p.m. he found both the

accused persons with the victim boy Habil. In his examination-in-chief he

further testified that on the said day from the evening the victim Habil along

with his two buffaloes went missing and in the intervening night of

07.12.2006 /08.12.2006 at about 3:30 a.m. after getting information from

the villagers of Chaddomile he along with PW1 and some other co-villagers

went to village Chaddomile and found accused Rafiqul and two buffaloes of

PW1 have been kept detained there and on being asked the accused Rafiqul

denied to disclose anything at the first instance but subsequently the said

accused Rafiqul confessed that he and Israfil murdered Habil at Bhatsala

Bandher math. In his cross-examination PW5 remained consistent and

nothing could be elicited from his mouth to establish that his version in his

examination-in-chief is opposite to the truth.

19. On perusal of the evidence of the PW6 who is also a co-villager of PW1

it reveals to us that he testified in the same line as of PW5 and therefore we

propose not to discuss the evidence of PW6 in detail to avoid repetition.

20. PW 14 and PW 16 are both residents of village Chaddomile and in

considered view of this Court their depositions are very much relevant for

effective adjudication of the instant two appeals. On perusal of the

deposition of PW14 it reveals to us that it has been testified by PW14 that on

the relevant day in the evening when he and his other co-villagers were

sitting in a tea stall near Chaddomile crossing, accused Rafiqul Sk. with two

buffaloes came to them and asked for a cow boy. He further testified that

accused Rafiqul wanted to take the buffaloes to Behrampur with the help of

a cow boy for which he was ready to pay Rs.500/-. PW14 further testified

that after seeing the conduct of the accused Rafiqul and also on seeing the

two buffaloes with him, they became suspicious and thus they detained the

said Rafiqul and his two buffaloes and started interrogating him and at that

time Rafiqul confessed before them that he stole those buffaloes from village

Moktarpur which actually belongs to PW1. He further testified that Rafiqul

became afraid and then he disclosed that he (Rafiqul) and one Israfil stole

those buffaloes and he also confessed that while stealing the buffaloes both

the accused persons murdered the son of PW1.

21. PW16 being the Secretary of Nazrul Sukanta Club of Village

Chaddomile in course of his examination-in-chief practically echoed the

version of PW14. He also testified that after seeing Rafiqul and two buffaloes

with him as well as after seeing the conduct of Rafiqul, especially when he

was searching for a cow boy at a cost of Rs.500/-, they became suspicious

and accordingly he and his other co-villagers of Village Chaddomile

apprehended the accused Rafiqul and his two buffaloes and thereafter they

started interrogating the accused Rafiqul and in course of such interrogation

they sometimes threatened him also and such detention and interrogation

continued from 8 p.m to 12:30 a.m. on the said day. He further testified that

while on detention, the accused Rafiqul disclosed that he stole the buffaloes

from the son of PW1 and also murdered Habil (son of PW1) and laid him in a

land. It is pertinent to mention herein that both the PW14 and PW16 though

remained consistent in their respective cross-examinations but PW16

categorically stated in his cross-examination that though he and his co-

villagers did not assault or commit mental torture upon the accused the

Rafiqul but they threatened him.

22. It reveals from the Lower Court Record that learned Trial Judge court

while passing the impugned judgement came to a finding that the case

before him is based on circumstantial evidence and in the opinion of the

learned trial judge all the circumstances as against the present two

appellants have been duly proved to form a complete chain. While passing

the impugned judgement learned trial court also considered the probative

value of the extra judicial confession as claimed to have been made by the

accused Rafiqul in the light of Section 21 of the Evidence Act and thus

found the same is reliable one. It further reveals to us that learned trial

court also found that the inference of guilt of the accused Israfil Sk. can also

be considered favourably in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act and thus

passed the aforementioned judgement of conviction which is impugned

before us in these two appeals.

23. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellant

in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2008 submits before this Court that the learned

trial court while passing the impugned judgement has assessed the evidence

of prosecution witnesses in a wrong perspective and thus failed to consider

that the last seen theory of the present appellants with the victim boy

cannot be applied since the time gap between the last seen together and the

recovery of the dead body is considerably long. It is further argued by Mr.

Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal no.

2/2008 that the learned trial court is not at all justified in placing his

reliance upon the alleged extra judicial confession of accused Rafiqul Sk.

since from the evidence of PW14 and PW16 it would reveal that such extra

judicial confession was not an outcome of free mind and on the contrary the

same has been extracted out of threat and by keeping the accused Rafiqul in

long detention. It is further argued by Mr. Bhattacharya that learned trial

court has miserably failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 30 of the

Evidence Act in its proper perspective inasmuch as learned trial court has

failed to consider that confession of a co-accused is a fragile and feeble type

of evidence and it should not be considered as a substantive piece of

evidence in absence of any other positive evidence in this regard. Drawing

attention to the examinations of the accused persons under Section 313 of

the Cr.P.C. It has been contended by Mr. Bhattacharya, that in failing to put

the relevant questions to the accused person regarding the extrajudicial

confession of co-accused Rafiqul Sk., learned trial court is not at all justified

in passing the impugned judgement of conviction.

24. Ms. Shabana Hasin, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal

Appeal no.439/2008 duly assisted by Mr. Koustava Ratan Chatterjee,

Learned Amicus Curiae while echoing the submissions of Mr. Pratha Sarathi

Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.

02/2008 places her reliance upon the following reported decisions :-

i. Krishnan @ Ramasamy and ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu

reported in (2014) 12 SCC 279;

ii. Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam reported in 2013 (4) Supreme

509.

iii. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of U.P reported in 2022

SCC Online 1396.

Learned advocates for the appellants in both the aforementioned

Criminal Appeals thus submit before this Court that it is a fit case for

allowing both the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgement.

25. Per contra, Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by Md. Kutubuddin, learned advocate

and Mr. Santanu Deb Roy, learned advocate submits before this Court that

there cannot be any justification to unsettle the decision as arrived at by the

learned trial court while passing the impugned judgement and order. It is

contended on behalf of the State that the learned trial court is absolutely

justified in placing its reliance upon the extrajudicial confession as made by

Rafiqul Sk. which has been proved from the corroborated testimony of PW4,

PW5, PW6 vis-à-vis PW14 and PW16. Mr. Datta, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State further submitted before this Court that the learned

trial court is also justified in applying the provision of Section 30 of the

Evidence Act in its proper perspective and thus rightly accepted the extra

judicial confession of the accused Rafiqul against Israfil Sk. and thus rightly

found both the appellants guilty under Sections 302/34 IPC. Mr. Datta,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor thus submits that it is a fit case for

dismissal of the instant appeal.

26. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and

after hearing the arguments of the learned advocates for the contending

parties we have also no doubt in mind that the case before the learned trial

court which is the subject matter of the instant two appeals are based on

circumstantial evidence. On perusal of the judgement as passed by the

learned trial court it reveals to us that in the impugned judgement more

specifically at page no.22 of the impugned judgement learned trial court has

specifically dealt with the alleged extrajudicial confession made by accused

Rafiqul and on the basis of the evidence as adduced before him came to a

specific finding that PW14, PW16 and PW5 have duly proved the

extrajudicial confession as made by the accused Rafiqul Sk. and learned

trial court thus expressed the view that such extrajudicial confession can be

accepted in evidence and can be the basis of conviction.

27. At this juncture we propose to look to the provisions of Section 24 of

the Indian Evidence Act and the same is reproduced herein below in

verbatim:-

"24.Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or 1promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him."

28. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provision, if we look to

the evidence of PW14 and PW16 conjointly it appears to us that both PW14

and PW16 are the residents of village Choddomile. From their examination-

in-chief it reveals to us that both of them testified that on the relevant day in

the evening accused Rafiqul came to a tea stall where both PW14 and PW16

were sitting and at that time he was looking for a cow boy for which he was

agreeable to pay Rs. 500/-. From the testimonies of PW14 and PW16 it

reveals to us that accused Rafiqul Sk. and the two buffaloes were

intercepted by PW14 and PW16 as well as by the other co-villagers of Village

Choddomile. PW14 in course of his examination-in-chief testified that on

being afraid accused Rafiqul Sk. disclosed that he and co-accused Israfil

stole those buffaloes and subsequently also confessed that they have also

murdered the son of PW1. From the testimony of PW16 it reveals that at

that material time he was the Secretary of a local club of Choddomile village

and after interception he and his other co-villagers started interrogating the

accused Rafiqul Sk. and threatened him and then he disclosed that he stole

the buffaloes from the son of PW1 at about 12:30 a.m. In his cross-

examination PW16 candidly admitted that accused Rafiqul was threatened

prior to making of alleged extrajudicial confession. Such being the position,

under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the alleged confessional

statement of the accused Rafiqul is voluntary and is not the outcome of any

force or threat or promise. It is pertinent to mention herein that from the

version of PW14 and PW16 it reveals to us that though PW14 was

intercepted by them in the evening time at village Choddomile but the said

accused disclosed about such theft and alleged murder at about 12:30 a.m.

For the sake of argument even if it is presumed that the accused Rafiqul Sk.

made voluntary statement about his guilt in presence of PW14, PW16 and

vis-à-vis PW4,PW5 and PW6 the same is not acceptable in evidence in view

of clear bar under Section 24 of the Evidence Act basically on the following

grounds namely:-

i. Such confession has been caused by the threat as given by PW14

and PW16.

ii. PW16 can very well be termed as a person in authority since he was

at that material time the Secretary of a local club of village

Choddomile.

iii. A prolong custody of accused Rafiqul Sk. by the villagers of

Choddomile immediately preceeding the making of confession which is

sufficient to stamp confession involuntary unless it is properly

explained.

29. In view of the discussion made hereinabove we are in total

disagreement with the view taken by the learned trial court that though the

witnesses have proved the extrajudicial confession against accused Rafiqul

Sk. but the same cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence to

draw an inference to the guilt of the accused Rafiqul Sk.

30. In our estimation since Israfil Sk. i.e. the appellant in CRA 02/2008

has been convicted by the learned trial court on the basis of extrajudicial

confession alleged to have been made by the Rafiqul Sk., and even if for the

sake of argument it is held that before the learned trial court such extra

judicial confession has been proved in accordance with law even then the

conviction of the appellant Israfil Sk. cannot be upheld in view of the limited

scope of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act which is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

""Section. 30: When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such person affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take

into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession."

31. The scope of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act has been well

explained in the reported decision of Sasi Vs. State of Kerala reported in

(2000) 10 SCC 360 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following:-

"It is well settled that the confession made by a person as against the co-accused cannot be used as a substantive evidence. It can only be used as a corroborative piece. In the absence of any reliable substantive evidence as against A-2 to A-5 the confessional statement cannot be used for any purpose as against the co-accused."

The same view was taken in the reported decision of Bishnu Prasad

Sinha vs. State of Assam reported in (2007)11 SCC 467 and in the

reported decision of State of M.P vs. Paltan Mallah and Ors. reported in

(2005) 3 SCC 169.

32. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Bhattacharya as well as Ms. Shabana

Hasin and Mr. Koustava Ratan Chatterjee, Leaned Amicus Curiae that from

the totality of the prosecution evidence it would reveal that though PW2,PW5

and PW6 being the co-villagers of Moktarpur village where the victim boy as

well as the father (PW1) used to reside stated categorically that in the

afternoon of 07.12.2006 they found the victim boy and the accused persons

together in the grazing field situated near to their village but all the aforesaid

witnesses as well as the other prosecution witnesses categorically stated

that the dead body of the victim boy was recovered on the next day

afternoon at Bhatsala field which is away from the spot where the victim boy

was found in the company of the accused persons. From the evidence of the

Autopsy Surgeon i.e. PW19 nothing reveals with regard to the actual or

probable time of death of the victim. At this juncture we may safely rely

upon the reported decision in Satpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in

(2018) 2 CCrLR (SC) 465 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing

with the subject of last seen theory vis-à-vis circumstantial evidence held

thus:-

"Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularity. But when it is coupled with circumstances such as time when the deceased was last seen with the accused the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypotheses of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of the chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused."

33. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

reported decision of Zavir vs. ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in

2023 (2) AICLR 174(SC) as cited by Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned advocate for

the appellant in CRA 02 of 2008.

34. In view of such proposition of law as enunciated in the decision of

Satpal (supra) there leaves no room of doubt that in view of long gap

between the victim found in the company of the accused persons and the

recovery of the dead body that too from a far place and also in absence of

proximate time of death of victim, Learned trial court ought to have given

benefit of doubt to the present appellants while passing the impugned

judgement.

35. In view of the discussion made hereinabove we thus find sufficient

merit in the instant two appeals and the instant two appeals are thus

hereby allowed.

36. As a result, the impugned judgement of conviction and order of

sentence dated 06.10.2007 and 08.10.2007 respectively as passed by the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court,

Behrampur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 18/April/2007 arising out of

Sessions Serial. No. 343/2007 is hereby set aside.

37. The present two appellants namely; Israfil Haque Sarkar @Sk. and

Rafiqul Sk. Are thus acquitted from the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC

in connection with the Sessions Trial No. 18/April/2007 arising out of

Sessions Serial. No. 343/2007 as disposed of by learned Additional District

and Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Behrampur, Murshidabad and

they be released at once from the Correctional Home where they are

detained now unless they are wanted in connection with any other case or

cases.

38. For due assistance of Mr. Koustava Ratan Chatterjee, learned Amicus

Curiea as appointed by us in connection with Criminal Appeal no. 439/2008

in disposing both the appeals we request learned Secretary, Calcutta High

Court Legal Service Committee to pay honorarium to Mr. Koustava Ratna

Chatterjee, learned Amicus Curiae as per his entitlement at the earliest.

39. With the aforementioned observation both the appeals being CRA

02/2008 and CRA 439/2008 along with all connected applications are

disposed of.

40. Department is directed to forward a copy of this judgement along with

the LCR to the learned trial court at the earliest.

41. Department is further directed to forward a copy of this judgement to

the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, District Murshidabad, with a

direction to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority Murshidabad to

forward the said copy of the judgement to the Superintendent of the

Correctional Home where the present appellants are detained now so that

the release of the present two appellants can be expedited at the

intervention of the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority,

Murshidabad.

42. Department is further directed to forward another copy of this

judgement to the Secretary, Calcutta High Court Legal Service Committee

for doing his needful as aforesaid.

43. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal

formalities.

I agree.

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