Sk.Khabir vs The State Of West Bengal

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, necessary for the disposal of this case is as follows. The de­facto complainant (PW­1), and his brothers Abdul Sayed and Narul Islam were arrested sometime in May,1980 1 in  connection   with  murder  of one Saiful  Islam  of Nalitjole Village.

Even after getting released by bail, they could not go back to their village   as   their   residence   was   ransacked   and   damaged   by   the enraged villagers. However, the accused persons along with others, persuaded   the   complainant   and   his   brothers,   to   return   to   their village. Consequently, on their return to the village on 25.04.1981, they   found   an   assemblage   of   villagers   near   their   house   and suspecting   certain   danger,   they   ran   to   save   their   lives.   But,   they were   chased   by   the   accused   persons,   including   the   present appellant, armed with deadly weapons like swords, spears and lathis etc. This pursuit ended with the brutal killing of the brothers of PW 1­complainant   at   around   11:45   A.M,   wherein   the   complainant himself was grievously injured by the accused persons. Thereafter, the   FIR   being   Case   No.18/1981,   dated   25.04.1981,   came   to   be registered under Sections 148,149,342,326,307,302 of IPC, wherein around 26 persons, including the present appellant were named as the accused persons. Subsequently, the chargesheet was submitted under Sections 148/149/307/302, IPC against the appellant and 12 others. Thereafter, the accused persons were put on trial as they did not plead guilty to the charges leveled against them.

3. After the conclusion of trial, the present appellant, and five others 2 were found guilty and convicted under Sections 148/307, IPC read with   Section   149/302,   IPC.   Aggrieved,   by   the   aforementioned judgment of conviction the accused persons, including the appellant, preferred an appeal before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 1985, wherein they contended that, there has been irregularity in framing of the charge and therefore, the conviction and sentence was not   sustainable   on   the   basis   of   such   irregular   charge.   Vide   order dated 31.07.1981, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the accused persons and remanded back the matter for retrial.

4. In   furtherance   of   the   above   order,   the   trial   court   initiated   the retrial,   where   upon   the   examination   of   evidences   on   record,   the appellant  along  with  five  other accused persons were found guilty under   Section   148/307   read   with   Section   149/302   of   IPC. Accordingly, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs.500/­ each and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months each for the offence under Section 302/149 of IPC.  They were also directed to undergo rigorous   imprisonment   for   two   years   each   for   the   offence   under Section 307 IPC read with section 149 IPC and shall also pay a fine of   Rs.300/­   each   and   in   default   to   suffer   further   rigorous imprisonment for three months each. There were further directed to 3 undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 148 IPC and shall also pay a fine of Rs.100/­ each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each.  All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved   by   the  above   order  of  conviction,  the accused persons, including the present appellant, again approached the High Court in Criminal   Appeal   no.42   of   1990.   The   High   Court   dismissed   the appeals preferred by the accused persons and upheld the order of conviction   passed   by   the   trial   court   qua   accused   no.2   (appellant herein), accused no.3 and accused no.6.

12. Having observed the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered   opinion   that,   both   the   Courts   below   have   rightly convicted the accused.   In our opinion, there exists no perversity in the   judgment   of   the   High   Court.  Hence,   there   is   no   reason   to interfere in the well­reasoned order of conviction and sentence.

13. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

14. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.