Somnath Mandal & Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated November 28, 2024, and the order of sentence dated November 29, 2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura, in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2019, arising out of Sessions Case No. 308 of 2018

The appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, alongside a fine of ₹50,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The appellants were also convicted under Section 341 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, along with a fine of ₹500/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for five days.

All sentences were directed to run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by the appellants during investigation, inquiry, and trial was directed to be set off against the substantive sentences in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

On July 2^nd, 2018, the appellants murderously assaulted the victim, Rabindranath Mondal, in his agricultural field, PO, causing severe injuries to which he eventually succumbed at Onda Super Speciality Hospital at approximately 12:40 PM. The victim and his family shared a long-standing enmity with the appellants inter-alia in connection with construction of a road in the village, Chudamani.

On the fateful morning, PW-19 was working as an agricultural labourer in the victim’s field from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. The victim had left his home carrying a meal for PW-19. While at the field, the appellants armed with a spade, an iron rod, a bamboo stick and a scythe brutally assaulted him.

One Pratik Bajpayee telephonically informed the victim’s son (PW-13) that the accused persons namely Gopal Mondal and his two sons, Somnath Mondal and Raghunath Mondal had brutally assaulted his father. PW-13 immediately relayed this information to his mother (PW-1), who was residing with him at Beliatore, in the village. The accused Gopal Mondal passed away prior to/during the trial, leading to the abatement of proceedings against him.

Upon receiving the news, PW-1 and PW-13 rushed towards Chudamanipur Village (where the PO is situated). En route, they received further information that the victim had been shifted to Onda Super Speciality Hospital, whereupon they went directly to the hospital. However, by the time they arrived, the victim had already succumbed to his injuries.

PW-1 lodged a written complaint dated July 2, 2018, at the Onda Police Station. Consequently, Onda P.S. Case No. 73/2018 dated July 2, 2018, was registered under Sections 341, 302, and 34 of the IPC against the named accused persons.

An inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased between 2:40 PM and 3:45 PM on the same day. The inquest report recorded that while the victim was working in his field, he was restrained and attacked by three co-villagers armed with a spade, an iron rod, and a scythe, and that he subsequently died at Onda Super Speciality Hospital.

A post-mortem examination was conducted on July 2^nd, 2018. It revealed multiple injuries that collectively caused the death of the victim. The post-mortem doctor (PW-16) initially reserved his final opinion on the precise cause of death pending receipt of the CFSL report.

Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and formal charges were framed on January 5, 2019, under Sections 341/34 and 302/34 of the IPC against the accused persons, Somnath Mondal, Raghunath Mondal, and Gopal Mondal. The trial commenced thereafter.

PW-1, Karunamoyee Mondal, was the wife of the victim. She has deposed that on July 2^nd, 2018, between 10:00 AM and 10:30 AM, her son Rathindranath Mondal (PW-13) received a phone call from Pratik Bajpayee informing him that her husband was being brutally assaulted by Gopal Mondal, Raghunath Mondal, and Somnath Mondal. She was informed that the victim was taken to Onda Hospital.

Upon reaching Onda Super Speciality Hospital, she found her husband dead and learnt that he had been attacked on his way to his agricultural field. She identified the accused persons in court and confirmed that the written complaint was scribed on her instructions by Ashok Mondal (who passed away prior to trial).

She has deposed that her son (PW-13) had previously been chased and threatened by Raghunath and Somnath Mondal over a village road dispute, forcing him to reside separately at Beliatore.

PW-2, Bachchu Singha, was a co-villager working in his field on the fateful day. He has deposed that between 10:00 AM and 10:30 AM, he heard the victim shouting "Bachao, Bachao"( save me) and witnessed Gopal Mondal striking the victim with a bamboo stick, Raghunath Mondal with a katari, and Somnath Mondal with a spade from a distance of approximately 300 to 400 hands from his field.

Fearing the armed assailants, he did not intervene immediately. Upon seeing the accused persons have fled the scene, he reached the spot alongside Sushanta Pal (PW-3), Subhasish Horkara (PW-9), and others before local villagers shifted the victim to the hospital. He identified the seized blood-stained earth and straw in court and acknowledged having made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He admitted to have omitted to name the weapons before the magistrate.

PW-3, Sushanta Pal, was a sharecropper ( bargadar) working in an adjacent field. He has deposed that he saw the victim heading towards his field for sowing around 10:00–10:30 AM. While returning after fetching drinking water from Bagdipara (100 hands away), he witnessed Raghunath assaulting the victim with a katari, Somnath with a spade, and Gopal with a bamboo lathi while the victim cried out for help.

Being petrified, he approached only after the assailants fled, at which point he offered water to the injured victim upon his request. During trial, he affirmed his statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and specifically confirmed to the Court that he saw all three accused throw down and beat the victim across his entire body.

PW-4, Kanai Bagdi, was a Toto driver and co-villager returning home for lunch on the fateful day. He has deposed that he saw Somnath Mondal, Raghunath Mondal, and Gopal Mondal restrain the victim and assault him mercilessly before he fled the scene out of fear. He identified the accused in court and confirmed his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., clarifying during cross-examination that his omission of Gopal Mondal’s name before the Judicial Magistrate occurred simply because he was not specifically asked about Gopal at that time.

PW-5, Bishwanath Dey, was a nephew of the deceased accused Gopal Mondal and witness to the inquest. He has deposed that he reached the hospital around 12:30 PM after learning of the attack and later witnessed police officers bring appellants Somnath and Raghunath Mondal to the village on July 20^th, 2018.

He has deposed that pursuant to disclosure statements made by the accused, they led the police team to the south-western bank of "Kumarpukur" pond and pointed out the exact spot from where the murder weapons were recovered and seized under a list he signed. He denied defence suggestions that he was a "stock witness" merely because he was cited as a prosecution witness in a separate, subsequent criminal case.

PW-6, Manash Mondal, was a cousin of the appellants. He has deposed that upon hearing that the victim was lying on a cot with bleeding injuries, he rushed to the spot and learnt from Surujit Bauri that Somnath, Gopal and Raghunath Mondal had assaulted the victim. He subsequently assisted in transporting the injured victim to Onda Super Speciality Hospital in a Maruti van. He admitted during cross-examination that he was not formally interrogated by the police nor had he previously reported the assault to any authority.

PW-7 was Sanjib Samanta @ Bappa. He was a co-villager. He has deposed that upon being telephonically informed of the attack by PW-9, he arranged for a vehicle, alerted Onda Police Station, and signed as an inquest witness at the hospital.

He fully corroborated the recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, in that a katari, a bamboo stick, and a spade were recovered from the Kumarpukur pond bank on the leading statements of the accused persons Somnath and Raghunath Mondal in his presence. He also confirmed the existence of a prior village road dispute and threats issued by the accused against the victim and his son.

PW-8, a police constable, posted at Onda P.S. He has deposed that he accompanied SI Saiful Sheikh to Onda Super Speciality Hospital on the day of the incident, escorted the deceased's body to the morgue for post-mortem examination under a dead body challan, collected the blood-stained wearing apparel of the victim, and handed it over at the police station under a formal seizure list bearing his signature.

PW-9, was Subhasish Horkara. He has deposed that around 11:00 AM, while sitting on his shed’s rooftop, he noticed local girls running in distress and followed them to find the victim lying severely injured. The victim gave an oral dying declaration to him specifically naming "Raghu, Gopal, and Somnath Mondal" as his assailants and pleaded to be taken to the hospital. He detailed how he assisted in moving the victim on a cot to Bauripara Tentultala before loading him into a Maruti van. He witnessed the police seize blood-stained mud from the PO, signed the seizure list, and identified the accused persons by name in court.

PW-10, Alok Bauri, the driver of the Maruti Omni van, by which the victim was taken to the hospital. He has deposed that after receiving a phone call regarding an emergency at Churamanipur village, he drove to the spot between 11:00 AM and 11:30 AM, found the severely bleeding victim placed on a cot, loaded him into his vehicle, and rushed him to Onda Super Speciality Hospital.

PW-11 was Shibdas Sutradhar. He has deposed that the police officers arrived at the south-western bank of Kumarpukur pond with accused Raghunath and Somnath Mondal, who recovered a katari, spade, and bamboo stick from the water, resulting in a formal seizure list signed by him, PW-5, PW-7, and the said accused persons. However, during cross-examination, he claimed that the weapons produced in court during trial did not appear to be the exact articles that were originally recovered.

PW-12, Tapashi Mondal, a nurse on duty at Onda Super Speciality Hospital. He has deposed that the victim was brought to the hospital around 12:30 PM with profuse bleeding and succumbed to his injuries within 10 minutes, after which she witnessed and signed the police inquest report conducted over the dead body between 12:45 PM and 12:50 PM.

PW-13, Rathindranath Mondal, the son of the victim. He has deposed regarding the underlying motive of the accused persons. He has deposed that after an April 5, 2018 assault by the accused persons over a village road dispute led to a criminal case and continuous threats against the victim and family.

He was forced to reside separately at Beliatore. On July 2^nd, 2018, between 11:00 AM and 11:30 AM, he received a phone call from Pratik Bajpayee informing him of the attack on his father, whereupon he alerted his mother (PW-1) and rushed to Onda Super Speciality Hospital, finding his father dead upon arrival.

PW-14, Uttam Mondal, was a police constable at the Onda P.S. He has deposed that he accompanied the Officer-in-Charge and SI Saiful Sheikh to Chudamanipur village around 11:00 AM on July 2, 2018, where he was handed the written complaint given by PW-1. He went back to Onda Police Station for registration of an FIR based on the said complaint. He, however, did not make GD entries or endorse the said complaint.

PW-15, Dr. Moumita Kundu, was an Emergency Medical Officer at Onda Hospital. He has deposed that the victim was brought to the hospital at 12:30 PM in an unconscious, gasping condition with multiple deep incised and penetrating injuries on the frontal region and died at 12:40 PM (Exhibits 8 & 9). She proved the treatment sheet, confirmed notifying the police, and noted during cross-examination that while the injuries were deep and profuse, no mud or sand was observed directly inside the wounds.

PW-16 was the Post-Mortem doctor. He has detailed 13 external injuries (lacerations and abrasions across the forehead, chest, arms, and legs) and 4 internal injuries, including a severe subarachnoid hemorrhage across both cerebral hemispheres.

He has deposed that the injuries were caused by blunt force/heavy impact and their cumulative effect caused death. The homicidal death could not be ruled out, and noted that while he preserved the viscera, post-mortem doctors are not authorized to send it directly to the FSL.

PW-17, Sanchita Saha, was the Judicial Magistrate. She has deposed that she recorded statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4. She initially deposed certain omissions made by the said PWs in their statements to her but subsequently clarified during trial that the witnesses had indeed broadly disclosed before her that the accused persons murderously assaulted the victim using weapons such as a bamboo stick, kodal, and spade.

PW-18, Sudhir Mondal, was a local resident. She has deposed that he heard about the victim being assaulted by the accused persons and noted during cross-examination that he understood the incident had taken place near the Telipukur land belonging to the victim.

PW-19, Sadhan Bauri, was the agricultural labour working in the victim's field. He confirmed working there from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM on the day of the incident, but resiled from his initial police statement regarding witnessing the assault, claiming ignorance of how the victim was killed, leading the prosecution to declare him a hostile witness.

PW-20, Hirak Pahari, was the OC at Onda P.S. He has deposed that upon receiving telephonic information of the assault, he logged GD Entry No. 61 (noted as 11:45 AM in the GD register extract) and proceeded to Churamanipur village, where he received the written complaint from PW-1 at the PO and dispatched it to the police station for registration. He confirmed that the said GD entry is shown to have registered at 11:15 A.M. in the FIR.

PW-21 was SI Binoy Mullick. He has deposed that upon receiving the written complaint from the OC at 1:15 PM, he formally registered Onda P.S. Case No. 73/2018 under Sections 341/302/34 IPC (referencing GD Entry No. 64), registered UD Case No. 20/2018 upon hospital notification, and signed as a witness when SI Saiful Sheikh seized the victim's blood-stained clothes.

PW-22, SI Saiful Sheikh, was the Investigating Officer. He has indicated the steps taken during investigation. He has deposed that after receiving initial telephonic information and recording GD Entry No. 61, he visited the PO, found it vacant as the victim was moved. He proceeded to the hospital to conduct the inquest, seized blood-stained earth from the PO, and took steps for recording Section 164 statements. He oversaw the weapon recoveries from Kumarpukur pond, identified the seized physical evidence in court, and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the appellant has first argued that the place of occurrence of the crime is suspect. To support this, ld. counsel relied on the evidence of PW-22 (the Investigating Officer of the case), who deposed that none of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) stated to him that the victim was assaulted in the agricultural field belonging to Sudhir Mondal.

Ld. Counsel further sought to highlight an inconsistency by comparing the omissions in the statements of other PWs with the version given by the victim's wife (PW-1). PW-1 stated in her written complaint that the victim was intercepted and killed near Telipukur.

The aforesaid argument should be rejected in view of the topography of the place of occurrence, which consists of open agricultural fields. The PO was an agricultural field. The PWs have unanimously said the victim was beaten in the agricultural field. Thus, the nature and name of the PO is substantially confirmed.

PW-1 stated in her written complaint that the victim was intercepted at Telipukur, which is a pond located to the south of the PO. This written complaint thus sheds light on the nature of the PO.

The victim was beaten by multiple assailants, and during the course of the assault, he may have been dragged into the field belonging to Sudhir Mondal after intercepting the victim near Telipukur, which is very close to the PO. Furthermore, due to a lack of clarity regarding the exact ownership of Sudhir Mondal's field, the witnesses lacked precision when describing the exact location of the PO.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that while the FIR notes General Diary Entry No. 61 is effected at 11:15 AM on July 2, 2018, the extract of the GD register produced during trial shows the time 11:45 AM. Based on this, it is argued that the police records have been manipulated.

The aforesaid argument stands negated by two distinct GD entries involved in the prosecution case. The first GD Entry No. 61 recorded the initial and unverified information regarding a violent altercation and law-and-order disturbance at Churamanipur Village, arising from the assault on the victim. This entry did not constitute the FIR.

Accordingly, the discrepancy regarding the time at which the said GD entry was made cannot impeach the veracity of the FIR since it did not lead to its registration. Over-emphasis on the particulars of a GD entry, which did not culminate in an FIR, is uncalled for.

The FIR in question was registered pursuant to the second GD Entry No. 64, which was effected at 1:15 PM. The said entry recorded that the victim succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. Therefore, the prosecution case sprung from the second GD entry in addition to the said FIR.

In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, it was held that the General Diary is a voluminous daily administrative record. Thus a P.S. may not always infallibly record each preceding and following events in connection to an FIR.

A GD entry is not a preface to the registration of an FIR. An FIR is registered in a separate book called the FIR Register book. From this perspective, the legitimacy of an FIR should not be determined with reference to the time at which a corresponding GD entry was effected.

An entry in the General Diary of a police station cannot override the actual piece of information, which resulted in an FIR.

Mere procedural or clerical errors in recording time entries in a General Diary do not invalidate an FIR or negate the prosecution's case unless deliberate fraud or prejudice to the accused is demonstrated.

The appellants contended that the prosecution was motivated by personal enmity and political rivalries, highlighting prior litigations between the families.

It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that personal enmity is a double-edged sword. While it may provide a foundation for false implication, it serves as an equally potent motive for committing a crime.

When substantive, credible, and eye-witness evidence establishes the commission of an offense, the underlying motive or alleged mala fides of the informant pales into insignificance. It was held in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288, and in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 500, a criminal trial is conducted on behalf of society to punish crimes against the State. Once guilt is established through reliable evidence, private malice or political vendetta cannot vitiate a justifiable prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the oral evidence of PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 suffer from fatal omissions when juxtaposed with their Section 164 Cr.P.C’s statements, as pointed out by the Judicial Magistrate (PW-17).

A Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement is not a substantive piece of evidence. It corroborates and/or contradicts the witness during trial. Minor variations, non-mention of exact specification of weapons, or omission of exact time in a Section 164 statement cannot wipe out eye-witness testimony on oath, which has withstood cross examination.

The witnesses in this case are villagers hailing from a village. In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793, the evidence of villagers witnesses must be evaluated keeping in mind their social background and perceptive habits.

Minor discrepancies on the fringes or non-embellished omissions, arising out of fear, trauma, or unfamiliarity with legal procedure, cannot subvert the core of their testimony when it bears the impress of truth.

PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 gave consistent accounts of seeing the appellants actively assaulting the unarmed victim. Their failure to intervene is natural given that the assailants were armed with lethal weapons (katari, spade, and lathi).

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the name of one person, in addition to the other three accused persons, was taken by PW4. We, however, have not been able to find any name of such person taken by PW4 in addition to the other three accused persons.

In addition to this, the accused persons had appropriate remedies under the CrPC by filing an application to include any other person whom they believed had committed the crime with them or independent of them. It is really a matter of investigation as to whether the name of the other person allegedly taken by PW4 has ever surfaced during the course of investigation.

In view of the overwhelming evidence on record against the three accused persons, the said accused persons cannot take the benefit of the fact that additionally there was a fourth person whose name has not been charge sheeted by the police and accordingly has not been subjected to trial.

PW-9 has deposed that the victim, while lying in a pool of blood, explicitly named "Raghu, Gopal, and Somnath" as his assailants.

Section 32 of the Evidence Act has not prescribed any format let alone any rigid format for recording a dying declaration. However, ordinarily, a dying declaration must be recorded by a magistrate or a person of some status. This is the rule, the exception whereof is discussed below.

A magistrate or a person of some status namely, a doctor, may not be immediately available and the deceased victim may have very little time left in this world. In such an event, the victim may inform any person attending him the circumstances leading to his death. This is also natural. A person, having no interest to falsely implicate the accused can be a witness of a dying declaration.

In Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 671, it was held that a dying declaration is admitted and read in evidence as matter of necessity. A verbal dying declaration is also admissible. It was held as follows:

In Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 407, it was held as follows:-

Emphasis applied

A dying declaration given to an independent witness is, therefore, admissible. A dying declaration is admitted as a substantive piece of evidence as a matter of necessity. A dying declaration cannot be rejected on the technical grounds namely the designation of a person, who heard the declaration, is not that of a magistrate.

In the present case, the villagers of the victim were trying to save his life and took him to the hospital. The doctors at the hospital did not get the time to record the dying declaration of the victim, since they were busy saving the life of the victim.

On the other hand, the police also did not get the time to record the dying declaration of the victim by a magistrate, in view of the fact that the victim died before the arrival of the police at the hospital.

Therefore, in the present case, the dying declaration given by the victim to PW-9 cannot be brushed aside. It should be read against the innocence of the appellants. This cannot be construed as extra-judicial evidence, in view of the fact that the victim has voluntarily related and described the acts of the accused against him to PW 9.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued the recovery of the weapons of offence, katari, spade, bamboo stick from Kumarpukur pond under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is suspect since PW-11, a witness to the said recovery, has resiled on weapon identification, and the pond was accessible to the public and close to PW-2’s field.

The evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 has established that the appellants Somnath Mondal and Raghunath Mondal led the police team to the specific south-western submerged corner of Kumarpukur pond and pointed out the exact spot from where the weapons were retrieved.

PW-11 stumbled in identifying the said weapons during trial. The same however, does not dilute the clear, corroborated evidence of PW-5, PW-7, and IO PW-22, who confirmed the recovery and proved the seizure list.

PW-11 could not recall the description of the weapons recovered. The said weapons are ordinarily available in every Indian household. The said weapons lack any distinctive feature that a human mind would distinctly remember.

If Susanta Pal, PW 2, had kept the said weapons in the said pond, the accused persons would not have had knowledge of the area where the weapons were kept.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that recovery of the alleged murden weapons is hit by Section 27 since the recovery is not supported by any memorandum of statement of the accused. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision reported in Boby v. State of Kerala, reported (2023) 15 SCC 760.

In paragraph number 34 of Boby decision (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the memo of statement of the accused was a fabricated document. Despite having held such, the trial court went on to rely on the said memo to read the mental awareness of the accused in the commission of the crime.

In Boby decision (supra), the case of the prosecution was based on the last-seen theory and the circumstantial evidence against the accused. Therefore, the recovery of the weapon was to be read strictly. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution carries a slightly higher burden to join all the dots and prove the case. Therefore, the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused has to follow a stricter rigor of law as compared to a case based on direct eye witness account.

In the present case, however, as held above, the eyewitness accounts of the PWs are consistent, clear, and credible. In paragraph nos. 24 & 30 Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector Of Police, reported in 2024 INSC 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the application of Section 27 of IEA, 1872, should be pragmatically applied and it should not be put in a straitjacket formula. Thus, it not mandatory that in each case, a recovery under Section 27 has to be supported by a memo of statement of the accused.

In the present case, the prosecution witnesses have seen the accused persons showing to the police the pond from where the weapons were recovered. Their evidence of witnessing the conduct of the accused persons pointing out the place to the Police where the weapons were kept, has assumed the force of direct evidence as regards the recovery of the weapon. Therefore, in absence of a memorandum of the statement of the accused, the recovery made under Section 27 cannot be faulted. It should be read against the accused.

The appellants have argued that while the witnesses alleged the use of sharp weapons katari, and spade, the post-mortem report (PW-16) listed lacerations and abrasions typical of blunt force trauma, creating an irreconcilable conflict between medical and ocular evidence.

This argument is legally and factually untenable. The post-mortem report reveals widespread, severe physical damage: 13 external lacerations/abrasions and severe internal brain haemorrhaging (subarachnoid hemorrhage). A spade or heavy billhook, when struck with flat surfaces or heavy blunt force during a dynamic struggle, inflicts severe lacerations, blunt force crush injuries, and tissue tearing identical to those found by PW-16.

Injury No. 14 (bruise on the right forearm) directly reflects a defensive wound sustained while the victim tried to shield himself. Injury No. 17 (subarachnoid hemorrhage) reflects high-energy blunt impact trauma to the head, consistent with being struck violently with a bamboo stick and heavy agricultural tools.

Ocular evidence prevails over medical opinion unless the medical evidence completely rules out the physical possibility of the injury occurring in the manner alleged. In the present case, PW-16 explicitly stated that homicidal death could not be ruled out and that the cumulative effect of all injuries caused the death. The medical findings fully align with a heavy, multi-assailant blunt-and-sharp

Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the absence of mud on the victim's lungi or wounds negates the prosecution case that the assault occurred in an agricultural field.

The evidence on record has establishes that after the assault, the victim was moved by co-villagers onto a cot, wrapped in bedding, and transported via a Maruti van. Naturally, loose soil and surface mud were rubbed off during handling, wiping, and shifting. This minor observation does not displace the blood-stained earth seized directly from the PO under a proved seizure list.

The immediate reaction of the eye-witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4), the victim's cries for help (*"Bachao, Bachao"*), and his immediate statement to PW-9 naming his assailants form part of the same transaction. This immediate, untainted chain of events is admissible as res gestae and provides strong spontaneous corroboration to the prosecution case.

The evidence proves beyond doubt that all three accused arrived together armed with deadly weapons, conjointly launched a fatal assault on a defenceless victim, and fled the scene together. This shared physical action and pre-arranged plan fully satisfy the requirements of Section 34 IPC, making each appellant liable for the ultimate outcome—the murder of Rabindranath Mondal.

In Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 INSC 47, it was held as follows:-

The prosecution is not required to meet hyper-technical or impossible standards of perfection. The evidentiary chain presented by the prosecution in this case is complete, coherent, and establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence on record establishes an unbroken chain of events and direct eye-witness accounts that completely exclude any hypothesis of innocence of the appellants:

A. Long-standing enmity and ongoing litigation regarding a village road established a clear motive.

B. PW-13 was forced to reside away from the village due to continuous threats from the appellants.

C. The victim went to his field carrying meals for his labourer (PW-19), establishing his natural presence at the PO.

D. Independent eye-witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4) working in nearby fields saw the appellants assault the victim with weapons.

E. The victim made a prompt, untainted oral dying declaration to PW-9 naming the appellants.

F. The medical evidence (PW-15 and PW-16) confirms severe, cumulative fatal injuries consistent with the weapons used.

G. The weapons of offense were recovered pursuant to disclosure statements made by the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

In view of the detailed discussion above, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.1

Consequently, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed along with all connected applications, if any. The judgment of conviction dated November 28, 2024, and the order of sentence dated November 29, 2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura, in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2019 are hereby affirmed.

The appellants, if on bail, are directed to surrender forthwith before the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura, to serve out their remaining sentences.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the learned trial court forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

I agree.