Chandan Chatterjee alias Fulu vs State of West Bengal

Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.—This Criminal appeal No. 34 of 1994 has been placed before me for my opinion by order dated January 8. 2003 of the Hon''ble Chief Justice as recorded in the orders-sheet as their Lordships the Hon''ble Justice Sujit Barman Roy and the Hon''ble Justice Narayan Chandra Sil comprising the Division Bench differed in their separate judgments dated 18.12.2002 in the said appeal. On perusal and careful consideration of the aforesaid judgments I find that the Hon''ble Justice Sujit Barman Roy had been pleased to allow the appeal of the appellant Chandan Chatterjee @ Fulu and set aside the conviction of the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and 448 I.P.C. and the sentences passed thereon by the Trial Court but the Hon''ble Justice Narayan Chandra Sil had been pleased to modify the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Judge by finding the appellant guilty of committing offence u/s 304 Part I of the I.P.C. instead of u/s 302 I.P.C. and modifying the sentence accordingly to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused and considered the records including the aforesaid judgments referred to above.

Both of their Lordships have elaborately and carefully considered the facts, circumstances, materials and the evidence on record in respect of the appeal as well as the principles of law involved therein and accordingly I do not consider it necessary to repeat the same in my opinion.

It appears to me that His Lordship the Hon''ble Justice Sujit Barman Roy had been pleased to acquit the appellant of the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. on the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Moti Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, which is applicable according to his Lordship in the case.

In my opinion, however, the facts and circumstances of the case in Moti Singh vs. State of Maharashtra are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Since the distinguishing features have been elaborately discussed by His Lordship the Hon''ble Justice Narayan Chandra Sil in his judgment and I do not find anything more to add therein, I also do not consider it necessary to repeat the said distinguishing features.

There is no dispute that PW. 4 is the only eye-witness in this case and the other undisputed and unchallenged facts and evidence and record have been very carefully recorded in the judgment of His Lordship the Hon''ble Justice Narayan Chandra Sil.

In view of above, in my opinion I fully agree with the judgment passed by his Lordship the Hon''ble Justice Narayan Chandra Sil in respect of the difference in the judgments of Their Lordships. Since there is no difference of opinion regarding the order of acquittal of the appellant of the charge u/s 448 I.P.C. by His Lordship the Hon''ble Justice Sujit Barman Roy, no opinion need be given by me in respect of the same.