JUDGMENT
R.B. Misra, J.
1. Both the Criminal Appeals are being taken up together for hearing as both the appeals have arisen from the same judgment and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2000 and respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2000. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2000 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2000.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2000 has been preferred by the accused/appellant Under Section 374(2) of Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. 61 (WT/K) 99 sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years, for commission of offence punishable Under Section 304, Part II of IPC.
4. Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2000 has been preferred by the State Under Section 378/377 of Cr. P.C. against the same judgment and order dated 24-5-2000 convicting accused Ranjan Saha Under Section 304, Part II and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- and also convicting Parimal Saha and Naraya Saha Under Section 334 of IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 61(WT/K) of 1999.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12-4-1997 at about 2 p.m. deceased Dhanu Rudra Paul went to the shop of Parimal Saha for realization of his money where an altercation took place between Parimal Saha and deceased Dhanu Rudra Paul and at that time accused Ranjan Saha hurled a lathi blow on the head of Dhanu Rudra Paul, the deceased. On receiving lathi blow, Dhanu Rudra Paul fell down on the ground. After he fell down on the ground, accused Parimal Saha instructed the other accused-persons to finish Dhanu Rudra Paul and accordingly Narayan Saha. son of Parimal Saha hurled some lathi blows on the person of Dhanu Rudra Paul. On receiving such assault, the deceased lost his sense and in injured condition was removed to Teliamura Hospital and from there he was shifted to G.B. Hospital, Agartala where he succumbed to the injuries on 16-4-1997. After witnessing the occurrence, P.W. 2 Chadan Rudra Paul rushed to the house of Dhanu Rudra Paul (the deceased) and informed his father (P.W. 1) and P.W. 5 Khelan Rudra Paul, the wife of the deceased about the said incidence. On hearing about the occurrence, both P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 went to Teliamura hospital where they were informed that the deceased was admitted in G. B. Hospital. On the previous date of his death, Dhanu Rudra Paul regained his sense and stated his wife, P.W. 5 that he was assaulted by Parimal Saha and his sons Ranjan and Narayan when he demanded money from Parimal. After the death of Dhanu Rudra Paul on 16-4-1997 the dead body was sent to I.G.M. Hospital from G.B. Hospital for holding Post Mortem examination and accordingly Post Mortem examination was conducted on 17-4-1997.
6. Teliamura Police Station registered Teliamura P.S. case No. 27 of 1997 Under Section 302/34 of IPC on receipt of written ejahar from P.W. 1 and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-persons, namely, Parimal Saha, Narayan Saha and Ranjan Saha Under Section 302/34 of IPC.
7. Since the case triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Session.
8. To bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. On the other hand accused-persons, namely Parimal Saha himself was examined as D.W. 1. Out of the 15 prosecution witnesses, in fact, there were only 4 eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Chandra Rudra Paul, P.W. 4, Dipak Das, P.W. 13, Lalit Debnath and P.W. 14, Sahadev Das. P.W. 13 and P.W. 14, however, had turned hostile at the time of recording their evidence in the Court.
9. To test the legality of the impugned order we have to scrutinize the evidences and materials on record and in this respect we noticed as below:
10. From the testimony of P.W. 1 (Shri Upendra Rudra Paul), the father of the victim as well as the informant of the incidence, it is revealed that on getting information by P.W. 2 he rushed to Teliamura Hospital along with his wife P.W. 5 and after reaching there he came to know that his son was shifted to G.B. Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 17-4-1997, the dead body of the deceased had undergone post-mortem and the written ejahar was scribed by Akshay Das. P.W. 1 had stated that though his son was assaulted on 12-4-1997 but he could not lodge ejahar before 17-4-1997 as he was busy with the treatment of his son at Agartala.
11. P.W. 2, Shri Chandra Rudra Paul, eye-witness of the incidence has stated in his testimony that on the fateful day he observed Dhanu Rudra Paul and accused Parimal Saha was altercating in front of the shop of accused Parimal Saha. When he went to the spot, he heard Dhanu Rudra Paul asking Parimal Saha for returning his money. In the meantime, accused Ranjan Saha hurled a lathi blow on the head of Dhanu Rudra Paul who on receipt of lathi blow, fell on the ground. After falling on the ground, accused Parimal Saha instructed his sons to finish Dhanu and simultaneously accused Narayan Saha hurled 2/3 lathi blows on the person of Dhanu. On seeing the occurrence P.W. 2 rushed to the house of Dhanu Rudra Paul and informed the matter to his father and his wife who also rushed to spot. By the time (P.W. 2) returned to the place of occurrence, P.W. 2 came to know that the deceased was already removed to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries after 4 (four) days and since the date of incidence Parimal Saha, Narayan Saha and Ranjan Saha were absconding.
12. P.W. 3, Shri Shrinibash Rudra Paul had not seen the occurrence. P.W. 3 however, came to know about the incidence from Lalit Debnath and Dipu Das when he came to the shop of Lalit Debnath for tea.
13. P.W. 4, Shri Dipak Das, a rickshaw puller an eye-witness to the occurrence has stated that while sitting in his rickshaw in the Tuichindrai market at a distance of 30/ 35 cubits from the shop of accused Parimal Saha, he saw Dhanu Rudra Paul altercating with Parimal Saha and his two sons Ranjan and Narayan relating to some monetary transaction and during the altercation accused Ranjan Saha brought a wooden lathi and hurled a blow on the head of Dhanu Rudra Paul, and latter on receipt of such blow fell on the ground, when he rushed to the spot, he heard Parimal Saha directing his sons to inflict more blows on the person of Dhanu Rudra Paul and getting such instruction, accused Narayan Saha hurled 2/3 lathi blows on the person of Dhanu Rudra Paul. P.W. 4 has stated further stated that seeing the incidence, he became frightened and left for his house, on the following morning he came to know that Dhanu Rudra Paul had been shifted to G.B. Hospital. He further stated that after 2/3 days of the incidence Dhanu Rudra Paul succumbed to his injuries. This witness also confirmed that after the incidence Parimal Saha, Ranjan Saha and Narayan Saha left the village.
14. P.W. 5, Smt. Khean Rudra Paul the wife of deceased Dhanu Rudra Paul is not an eye-witness; However, on receiving information from Chandan Rudra Paul, P.W. 2 she along with her father, P.W. 1 rushed to the hospital by a rickshaw, where, she found that her husband was being shifted to G.B. Hospital by a vehicle. She stopped the vehicle and accompanied her husband. On the way she found her husband in senseless condition and also saw a swelling injury on his head. She reached G.B. Hospital with her husband at about 4 p.m. who was admitted in the G.B. Hospital and she was besides his bed in the G.B. Hospital till his death. She stated that her husband died on next Wednesday. She also confirmed that her father-in-law came to G.B. Hospital on the date of admission of her husband and he returned Tuichindrai with this witness along with the dead body of her husband Dhanu Rudra Paul. This witness further stated that on the previous day of his death Dhanu Rudra Paul regained his sense and at that time he was weeping and told (P.W.5) that he was assaulted by Parimal Saha, Ranjan Saha and Narayan Saha when he demanded money from Parimal Saha.
15. P.W. 6, Dr. Samir Saha, Medical Officer of Teliamura Hospital stated that on 12-4-1997 at about 2.35 p.m. when the Dhanu Rudra Paul (deceased) was brought in the hospital, he was unconscious.
16. P.W. 7. Dr. Ajoy Kumar Bhowmik the Medical Officer has held Post Mortem on the dead body of Dhanu Rudra Paul on 17-4-1997. According to (P.W. 7), he has noticed one blunt injury on the head of deceased on occipital region in the left side. He also found some blunt injuries on the right arm, right leg, left leg and back of the deceased. According to this witness, the cause of the death of Dhanu Rudra Paul was due to cardiorespiratory failure following homicidal head injury. This witness further stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by blunt weapon.
17. P.W. 8, Shri Akshay Kumar Das is the person who has scribed the ejahar which was submitted by P.W. 1 Upendra Rudra Paul in the Police Station.
18. P.W. 9, Shri Nani Kanta Sarkar is the police Constable who carried the dead body of deceased Dhanu Rudra Paul to I.G.M. Hospital from G.B. Hospital on 17-4-1997 and handed over the dead body to the relatives after completion of Post Mortem examination.
19. P.W. 11, Shri Anup Majumdar is the Police Officer who received written ejahar of Upendra Rudra Paul and registered Teliamura P.S. Case No. 27 of 1997.
20. P.W. 13, Shri Lalit Debnath and P.W. 14, Shri Sahdev Das though are eye witnesses of the incidence have turned hostile. Both P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 were cross-examined by the prosecution and when confronted with their previous statements, P.W. 13 admitted that Dhanu Rudra Paul went to the shop of Parimal Saha for realization of his money and relating to that, he was indulged in altercation with Parimal Saha. A portion of the previous statement of P.W. 13 was exhibited and marked as Exhibit-8. However, in Ext. 8, P.W. 3 alleged to have stated to I.O. that Parimal Saha and his two sons, Narayan and Ranjan, armed with two wooden lathis were standing on the verandah, and Ranjan Saha suddenly hurled a blow on the head of Dhanu with a shout, as a result, Dhanu fell on the ground and simultaneously, Narayan Saha started assaulting Dhanu with wooden lathi.
21. Similarly, P.W. 14 when confronted with his previous statement recorded by I.O. (a portion of his previous statement was marked as Ext. P-9. In Ext. P-9) has stated that ‘Ranjan and his elder brother entered inside their shop and brought out two wooden lathis, and Ranjan suddenly hurled a blow on the head of Dhanu with the said lathi and as soon as Dhanu fell on the ground, Narayan also assaulted Dhanu.’
22. P.W. 15, Shri Satyabrata Gupta, the Investigating Officer stated in his deposition that he had completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet against 3 (three) accused persons, namely Parimal Saha, Narayan Saha and Ranjan Saha under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. According to (P.W. 15) the I.O. when he raided the house of the accused persons on 17-4-1997, 18-4-1997 and 19-4-1997, they could not be arrested as they were absconding.
23. Since the incidence took place on 12-4-1997 at about 2/2.30 p.m. and FIR was lodged on 17-4-1997 at 9.55 a.m., the delay in filing the FIR has been explained by the prosecution by stating that the informant, P.W. 1, the father of the deceased and others were awfully busy in attending Dhanu Rudra Paul in the hospital and as such the FIR could not be promptly filed. As submitted by the prosecution, the close relatives of the family members were under tremendous pressure in the circumstances striving for the survival of Dhanu (deceased) and as such, filing of FIR at the belated stage shall not tantamount fatal. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge while relying on the decision of 1973 Cri LJ 185 has observed as under (para 11):
First information report under Section 154, Cr. P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the informant’s evidence in Court. But this information, when recorded, is the basis of the case set up by the informant. It is very useful if recorded before there is time and opportunity to embellish. Undue and unreasonable delay in lodging the F.I.R., therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion which puts the Courts on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and consider it’s effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. No duration of time in the obstruct can be fixed as reasonable for giving information of a crime to the police, the question of reasonable time being a matter of determination by the Court in each case. Mere delay in lodging F.I.R. with the Police is, therefore, not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The effect of delay in doing so in the light of the plausibility of the explanation forth-coming for such delay accordingly must fall for consideration all the facts and circumstances of a given case.
24. In the instant case, we notice that Dhanu Rudra Paul was taken to Teliamura hospital on 12-4-97 itself, the deceased had succumbed to the injuries after 4 days treatment in G.B. Hospital. P.W. 1, Upendra, the father of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. on 17-4-1997 after his return to Tuichindrai with the dead body of his son Dhanu. P.W. 1 in the F.I.R. as well as in his deposition stated that as he was busy with the treatment of his son Dhanu at G.B. Hospital at Agartala, he could not lodge F.I.R. before 17-4-1997. From the evidence on record we notice that Dhanu was treated in G.B. Hospital for four days and on 16-4-97 he died. On 17-4-97 Post Mortem of the dead body was held at 1.30 p.m. and thereafter the informant Upendra Rudra Paul returned to Tuichindrai with the dead body and lodged F.I.R. The son of the informant admittedly was under treatment in hospital at Agartala. It is revealed from the evidence on record that the informant was busy with the treatment of his son, it cannot be expected that the informant will rush to the Police Station to lodge FIR. The explanation given by the informant appears to us to be reasonable and as such, we are of considered view that such delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution.
25. We are conscious that delay in filing the FIR is not by itself fatal to prosecution. However, the basic fact that the report about incidence lodged belatedly was a relevant fact which has been endeavoured to be explained by saying that because of tremendous shock and prevailing circumstances the very close relatives i.e. the father and the wife could not lodge the FIR, promptly. However, we notice after the death of the deceased without any delay the FIR was lodged and as such, the delay in filing the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt for the prosecution in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in 2006 AIR SCW 2490 : 2006 Cri LJ 2881 (Sahebrao and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra) as well as in 2006 AIR SCW 5675 (Ramdas and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra).
26. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the accused has argued that from the endorsement of the Police Officer, it reveals that FIR was lodged at 9.55 a.m. on 17-4-97 but from the evidence of P.W. 1 Upendra Rudra Paul and P.W. 5, Khelan it reveals that Upendra Rudra Paul returned Tuichindrai in the evening on 17-4-97 and if that be so, if Upendra Rudra Paul returned Tuichindrai in the evening of 17-4-97, how he can lodge FIR at 9.55 a.m. on 17-4-97. According to learned Counsel, this contradiction goes to show that the FIR was manufactured and not genuine, and, as such, no reliance should be placed on the said FIR.
27. We do not find much force in the above submissions of the learned Counsel. As from the evidence of both prosecution and defence it is revealed that Upendra Rudra Paul, P.W. 1 returned Tuichindrai on 17-4-97 after the Post Mortem examination of the victim Dhanu. From the evidence of P.W. 7 Medical Officer, it is revealed that he held Post Mortem on the body of Dhanu at 1.30 p.m. So certainly Upendra Rudra Paul returned to Tuichaindri with the dead body in the evening and thereafter he lodged the FIR. Even from the evidence of D.W. 1 it reveals that Upendra Rudra Paul was at Agartala in connection with the treatment of Dhanu. So FIR cannot be lodged by Upendra Rudra Paul in the morning of 17-4-97. It might be lodged in the evening or thereafter, on 17-4-97. On perusal of the endorsement on the body of FIR, it appears to us that the Police Officer, who made the endorsement and registered the case committed error. He instead of putting the time 9.55 p.m. has written 9.55 a.m. The error committed by the Police Officer can also be detected from the date put by him with his signature wherein he has put the date as 27-4-97 instead of 17-4-97. It is because of these reasons the concerned Police Sub-Inspector who has committed such errors in recording the time and date of the FIR was rightly cautioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for future. Therefore, we are of the view that the minor discrepancy shall not be fatal to the prosecution.
28. It has been submitted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the accused that 4 witnesses, namely, Chandan Rudra Paul, Dipak Das, Sahadev Das and Lalit Debnath have only seen the occurrence. P. W. 2 Chandan Rudra Paul, the eye witness, informed the incidence to the informant, P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 by stating that accused Ranjan gave lathi blow on the head of Dhanu Rudra Paul and when Dhanu fell on the ground, as per instruction of accused Parimal Saha, his son Narayan also assaulted Dhanu by hurling 2/3 lathi blows, but his said version has not been supported by P.W. 1. According to Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the accused, the deceased, at the time of incidence, was in drunken condition and was quarrelling with the accused persons, and that Lalit Debnath, P.W. 13 had tried to pursue him and sent him to his house but again Dhanu went to the place of occurrence and started abusing the accused persons and had also hurled brick-bats on the vehicle of Parimal Saha causing damage to the same and when Dhanu Rudra Paul tried to attack accused Ranjan Saha with brick, to save his life he pushed Dhanu Rudra Paul on the ground, as a result Dhanu sustained injury on his head by falling on a brick. According to Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the accused P.W. 13 as well as P.W. 14 in their respective deposition has indicated that the deceased sustained injury on being fallen on a hard substance and that he was not assaulted by the accused-persons. When the deceased had fallen on the ground, accused Parimal Saha asked Lalit Debnath to bring water and the same was poured on the head of the deceased and it was Parimal Saha and his sons who had shifted the deceased to the hospital, therefore, in these circumstances the accused-persons cannot be held guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
29. On the other hand Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that out of 4 witnesses witnessing the occurrence, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 conjointly and coherently have witnessed the occurrence and have supported the prosecution version and P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 though were declared hostile, however, they have corroborated to the extent that the deceased had gone to the shop of Parimal Saha for realization his money and had an altercation with Parimal Saha. Therefore, despite being declared hostile, their testimony is supporting the prosecution version. According to Mr. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, even if the contention of the accused is taken to be reliable to the extent that there was provocation during altercation and at the instance of P.W. 13, when the deceased was persuaded to go back and again he came and quarrelled and certainly he provoked the accused, in that case also possibility of occurrence cannot be brushed aside and the incidence; would in that case be termed an offence to be brought under Section 304 of I.P.C. According to Mr. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, when the accused-persons have collectively assaulted and injured the deceased then the conviction not less than 10 (ten) years has to be awarded and in the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is too less. Therefore, Mr. Ghosh has submitted that it should be enhanced and the appeal preferred by the State has to be allowed.
30. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that out of 4 prosecution witnesses have seen the occurrence, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 conjointly supported the prosecution version and P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 though after witnessing the occurrence have turned hostile but we have to give due importance, to the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. We have also noticed that out of the above two witnesses (P.W. 2 and P.W. 4). P.W. 4 is an independent and chance witness. P.W. 2 had seen the occurrence and informed the matter to P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 and on such information, when they reached the hospital, they found the victim in an injured condition before his death; when the victim regained his sense, in his natural course, divulged to his wife P.W. 5 that he was assaulted by Parimal Saha, Narayan Saha and Ranjan Saha. We cannot understand why the disclosure of such fact by the victim to P.W. 5 has to be discarded.
31. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have indicated that the deceased was in drunken state and had quarrelled with the accused which could be treated as sufficient for provocating the accused person consequent upon the accused Ranjan Saha pushed the victim Dhanu Rudra Paul, whereupon the deceased fell on the ground and sustained injury on his head. In our respectful consideration, we are of the considered view that the accused in sequence to an altercation was not supposed to be assaulted grievously and to inflict injury during which the deceased could have succumbed such injury. The accused were not supposed to inflict injury of such nature on the person, even if he is in drunken condition, therefore, the state of drunken is not an escape from the liability of offence charged against the accused. P.W. 4, a rickshaw puller, an independent witness who, in fact, had seen the altercation between the deceased and the accused-persons and found that Ranjan Saha, the main accused who brought out a wooden lathi and hurled a blow on the head of Dhanu Rudra Paul (deceased) and as a result, he fell down on the ground, when P.W. 4 rushed to the spot, he heard Parimal Saha directing his sons to inflict more blows on the person of Dhanu Rudra Paul and on getting such instruction, accused Narayan Saha hurled 2/3 lathi blows on the person of Dhanu Rudra Paul (deceased). The said version of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 has subsequently been corroborated by the testimony of the Medical Officer, P.W. 7, Dr. Ajoy Kumar Bhowmik.
32. P.W. 7, Dr. Ajoy Kumar Bhowmik who conducted Post Mortem examination on the dead body on 17-4-1997 has found blunt injury on the head, right arm, left leg, right leg and back of the deceased. According to P.W. 7, blunt injury in the occipital region of the head of Dhanu Rudra Paul was cause of his death. P.W. 7 specifically deposed that such injury on the head of the deceased was sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course. The nature of injury could be caused by blunt weapon. We have considered that apart from the injury on the head of the deceased, P.W. 7 has also found one injury on the right arm, right leg, left leg and back of the deceased. The number of injuries inflicted also supported the testimony of P.W. 2 and P. W. 4 when both of them have collectively deposed that Ranjan Saha hurled lathi blows on the head of the deceased and when he had fallen down on the ground, then at the direction of Parimal Saha, his son Narayan Saha hurled 2/3 more blows on the person of the deceased. The marks of injuries inflicted by lathi were found by P. W. 7 at the time of holding Post Mortem examination. The discrepancy of such other injuries not being noted at the time of first instance of medical examination on the body of the deceased shall not be fatal to the prosecution case when injuries ultimately noted after Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased were corroborated by P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7.
33. We have also noted that undisputedly Dhanu Rudra Paul (deceased) was in drunken condition and being drunken he went for recovery of his money and had started altercation. When he asked for refund of his money, accused Ranjan Saha hurled a lathi blow on his head and on receipt of such blow he had fallen down on the ground. On instruction of Parimal Saha, his son Narayan Saha hurled 2/3 lathi blows on him. But materials on record do not divulge that there was any previous rivalry between the deceased and the accused-persons. There is also no evidence on record that the accused-persons conspired with each other and with pre-motive assaulted Dhanu Rudra Paul. From the records we notice that Dhanu Rudra Paul on drunken stage went to the accused and indulged in altercation and being enraged accused Ranjan hurled lathi blow on the head of the deceased and even after falling at the instance of Parimal Saha, his son Narayan Saha inflicted 2/3 blows on the person of the deceased. However, such injuries are not said to be inflicted on the head as the earlier injury inflicted by Rajan Saha was said to have sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. In totality of the facts and circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused-persons specifically under Section 304 of I.P.C. and has given benefit of doubt to Shri Narayan Saha and Parimal Saha for their involvement in the commission of the offence under Section 304 instead of Section 302 of I.P.C. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused-persons, namely, Parimal Saha and Narayan Saha for the offence under Section 334 of I.P.C.
34. After going through the materials of record and after perusing the evidences, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. However, in respect of awarding sentence, we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed lesser sentence upon the main accused Shri Ranjan Saha, i.e. the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2000. Therefore, we modify the sentence. Accused Ranjan Saha is held guilty for commission of the offence under Section 304, Part II of I.P.C. and he is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years. Accused Parimal Saha and Narayan Saha have rightly been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) each. Their conviction and sentence are hereby maintained. Accused Ranjan Saha shall deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000/-before the trial Court on or before 12th October, 2007. If the said amount is deposited within the specified time, trial Court shall pay the said amount to the wife (Shri Khelan Rudra Paul) of the deceased through an Account Payee Cheque after verification of her identify and after obtaining necessary undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial Court. If the said amount is not deposited, accused-appellant Ranjan Saha shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years. The trial Court has to take necessary action so that the aforesaid conviction and sentence is materialized.
In view of the above observations and direction/s, Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2000 is partly allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2000 is disposed of accordingly.
