In the court of the additional Dist &Session Judge At Raghunathpur Dist-

Purulia

Session Case No- 60/21

1.Srikanta Soren
2. Namita Soren vs State of west Bengal

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS U\S 314 Cr.P.C.

It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the above named accused

that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to acquit him in consideration of the following
facts and grounds: -

BRIEF FACTS
As per FIR, the Complainant, Sanjoy Soren , happen to be the brother of
accused lodged F.I.R. In presence of I.O. at the Po of the case ,as bank of the
river where one dead body buried and exhumed by police . that was the body of
father of complainant, as blamed who murder by his own elder son . on 12/7/21
accordingly Srikanta Soren and his wife were arrested till date they are in Judicial
custody
It is submitted that prosecution submitted the Charge-Sheet on 9/10/21, charged was
framed , u/s 302/201/34 I.P.C/ but the accused did not plead guilty and claimed for trial
and 12 witnesses were examined

Sanjoy Soren P.W-1 Complainant

Stated in that “at 03.35 hrs. on 16/7/21 lodge F.I.R at kashipur P.S.,”

Stated in Examination-in-Chief “column no-11, I used to return from my work place to

my house , I came to my house 2/3 days prior to the receving to the of said phone call.
(it means PW1 having knowledge of death of their father.
stated in Cross-Examination that column no-12 “ it is also common practice of our
locality the dead body was also graveyard in to bank of the river who are unable to
perform by burning the dead body of the deceased due to poverty.”
stated in Cross-Examination that column no-13 “it is fact that all villagers were known
that my father expired.
that stated in Cross-Examination column no -15 “it fact that after death of any family
member the entire house was delapated with cow dung and earth for purifying the
house.
that stated in Cross-Examination column no -23 I did not stated the police that srikanta
took away of his father by the said bicycle and inter the dead body into the earth with
his wife.“
In the COURT I.O.
stated that “I received F.I.R. at p.O. ”never meet a khasipur P.S. complainant and his
brother never visited Kashipur P.S. column no- in cross examinations of I.O.

P.W-04 Anil soren

Stated in Examination-in-Chief that “joydev and sanjoy went to kashipur PS informed
the matter as to the missing of their father Maheswar Soren.
In Cross-Examination he stated that “ I am day labour and as result use to go Adra and
Kashipur at about 6 A.M. and return 7.00 P.M. He Told Generally I did not see him as I
went to my work place at about 6 A.M. and I return a t my home at about 7 P.M.
I did not state to the I.O. as to the fact when the conversation took place in between
myself and sanjoy over telephone, .”
I accompanied Joydev and Sanjoy at Kashipur P.S.
I.O . deposed that they never meet at P.s. any of the date during investigation. column
no-
As I.O. not mention any telephone number in this case.

p.W- 5 Shyamapada Hansda Seizure witness

In Cross-Examination he stated that “The police asked me to put my signature over
seizure list at a Busy Place where from from Kodal and Cycle recovered there is no
special Mark.”
In chief Pw- 5 Told That I did not know whether he was murder or died in normal way.
He did not told that Srikanta or His wife present at time of seizure.

PW- 8, exam –in - chief

Column no-8-We called co- villagers and they advised us to go to police vstation
and accordingly we both brother and other villagers went to Kashipur P.S.
Clomn no- 9 My brother Sanjoy Soren Lodged the F.I.R the written Compliant to
that effect. There after police came to our house ”
In cross ex- column no 1. Told that we both brother meet at kapista more, and there
after both went to our residence at malancha. Also PW-8, told that on 15/7/21 we did
not go to p.S.
Column no- 14 told that it is fact I did not stated to the police we found blood stain over
the chair, takta, and floor of the room of my father.

All This version contradicted with the deposition of PW-1, & PW-4, &PW-8 & I.O. of this
case..

PW-11 Dr. sumanta Malick Cross Examination-

Autopsy doctor , as per version of doctor our morgue is not forensic lab.I conducted
PM in a naked eye, Adipocerous formation happen when last stage of the
decomposition of the dead body.
Dr. admitted It is fact the materials which were used to exhume the
dead body from earth effects is the body .
Doctor did not performed X-ray report for bone fracture determination , as this
general medical process nacked eye this not possible for prediction of any bone
injury.

Dr. admitted it is fact if a person become senseless for a long time due to hurt or
brain disease may be died.

Supreme Court of India

Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999

Para-4 “the defence has suggested to her, that the contusion noticed by her as injury No.4,
was not caused by external pressure but due to swellings that were caused during the
process of decomposition of the body. Hence, she could have wrongly concluded that the
death was partly due to asphyxia. To establish that there was a reasonable possibility of
PW-8 mistaking the swelling caused by decomposition as contusions, the defence
confronted her with certain well-recognised text-books on the subject. Firstly,

PW-8 was confronted with the statement appearing in the text "Lyon's Medical
Jurisprudence" wherein, at pp. 149 and 150 (1953 Edn.), the following statement was
found : "Other effects of pressure of gas are : "Distension of the tissues of the neck
resulting in accentuation of the natural groove and frequently giving rise to appearances
suggestive of strangulation." PW-8 accepted the fact that "Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence"
was one of the authoritative books on the subject. But, she still disagreed with the
statement extracted from the said book without assigning any reasons. However, she did
not support her opinion with any other acceptable material.”

Supreme Court of India,Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999

Para-4, During further cross-examination, PW-8 recognized Keith Simpson as a world

authority on medical jurisprudence. But she did not agree with the said Keith Simpson's
opinion that Parikh's book is a comprehensive and outstanding book on reference for
court work. This reference to Keith Simpson's opinion in Dr. Parikh's book was put to
PW-8, to suggest to her that if the hypostasis extends to the head, it may be mistaken as a
violence to the neck or smothering as found at page 159 of Dr. Parikh's text-book (4th
Edn. 1995). She disagreed with this statement as found in Parikh's book, solely based on
her personal experience and not supported by any other authority. While so disagreeing
with Parikh's book, she insisted on stating that the horizontal and uniformly hardened and
thickened area mentioned by her as injury No.4 must be due to ligature, even though
according to her post mortem report and evidence in the court, she had not seen any
ligature marks on the body of Jabeena. The defence has further confronted PW-8 with the
statement found in the book "The Essentials of Forensic Medicine" by Dr. K.S. Narayana
Reddy to establish the fact, that on decomposition of a body, the gas collects in the
subcutaneous tissue and becomes emphysematous. This would then create a false
impression of ante mortem obesity (stout). PW-8 disagreed with this opinion also,
without supporting her opinion on the basis of any other authority. From the statements
found in various text-books referred to above, notwithstanding the disagreement of PW-
8, we will have to conclude that there is a possibility of the existence of swellings
occurring in a decomposing body, similar to the one noticed by PW-8 which give
rise to appearances suggestive of strangulation. There is a reasonable possibility that
the contusions noticed by PW-8 .

I.O. in PW- 12 cross-examination-

I did not receive any Magistrate sanction for holding inquest of the dead body.
I did not make any note of the labours who were digging the earth where the dead
body kept.
I did not make any mearsurement from the depth where from dead body was
recovered .
It is fact both the accused were arrested prior to GD entry..hit by 162 Cr.P.C.
Complainant and his brother never visited the P.S.
Remand accused did not mention any place namely Piyari pukur.
 i.o.did not take help from accused , I.O. was premadiate to kown place as buried
the dead body. In inquest report he was marking injury over the head also .Dr. did
not notice any injury over the head.

Argue as per juridprudence parik page no- 61

Injury so rejlected due unskill diggiong process of exhumation.

1. That the accused are is quite innocent and this case is false and fabricated by the
police officials and police subordinate along with complainant..

2. That the Applicant is a poor person and belongs to respectable santhal community
family and the alleged allegation is foisted one by the police officials, actually no
offence was committed by the said accused person, and there is inconsistent statement
by the P.W-1 and Pw-4 & Pw- 8 for graving the landed property from their accused elder
brother who is the custodian of their landed property, after death of their father
complainant hackle the elder brother’s family .

3. That there is a compliant is not follow of mandatory provisions of Section 154

Cr.PC there is no G.D. entry procured by Police at the time . while the place of
occurrence is well populated area of the vicinity, witnesses are resident of the
locality but the subordinates who are interested witnesses inter se. as Pw1, Pw 2, Pw-
8 Highly interested witness.

In Cross-Examination he stated that “About, several person gathered at place of

first arrest of accused., I.O. did not ask those private persons to be witnesses”
I.O examine only highly interested witnesses.

4. That there are a lot of contradictions in the statements of P.Ws. Delay in lodged F.I.R.
And in only # hours Sending by I.O. And Completed The Investigation After obtains
evidence of Pw1, PW-4 Pw-8 .
Doctor’s opinion not fitted as it will may possible as sack of arguments . Due to
heavy compressed such type injury occur as at the time of exhume by unskilled
labour by blowing heavy digging material, as in cross examination I.O. did not
note down who are the labour the digging /exhume the body from earth.
Such injury occurred at the time of exhumed the body . parik medical
jurisprudence page-61

“ Then, under such circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws. that A1 led them and showed
the place where they had buried the dead body is also not believable and reliable.
( At that time Srikanta was not arrested). It is not for the first time that he came to
know about the dead body in that place. All the villagers were known about the
consequences” at that time accused were not arrested by the police , this version hit
by u/s 162 cr.p.c. accordingly all pws contradicted each other.
 I.O. did not reveal who inform about the death ofa person as buried under earth.

5. The next circumstance which the prosecution is produced is the recovery of club, stick ,
and spade and the seizure of the clothes of A1 Even though the recovery evidence has
been given by P.Ws, but if closely scrutinize their evidence, the club, bicycle which has
been recovered is also not having blood stains and it is a new one. Even it is not
believable that the said clubs which have been thrown by the accused persons in that
particular area will be available in the condition in which they have been thrown even
after 3 1/2 days s.it was intact as the place was open assess by every villagers. By bare
looking by this court, M.Os. are just like spade.& bicycle collected from the house of as
sack of argument Srikanta Soren As why should he abandoned his bicycle ( there is no
crime ) such a open place with in second any person collected said article and fled way. .
If they are exposed to rain, water and sun, definitely they would have changed their
colour and shape. So also, the recovery of the clothes of the accused persons. In this
behalf also, the recovery evidence of all these articles has not been proved .
Para 41,( Supreme Court of India,Subramanya vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2022)
Para 15.While considering the evidence of extra judicial confession, the Court must
also verify whether the accused could repose confidence in such a person so as to
disclose a secret aspect of his life. For this proposition of law, I want to rely upon
the decision reported in AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 258, [THE STATE OF
PUNJAB v/s BHAJAN SINGH & OTHERS] wherein it is held as under: “(C)
Evidence Act (1872), S.24 Extra judicial confession – Value of the evidence of
extra judicial confession in the very nature of things is a weak piece of
evidence. (The evidence adduced in this respect in the instant case, held, lacked
plausibility and did not inspire confidence.) Para 15”

6. That blood was not detected by forensic report in the only cow dung and sand
found. Report is not mentioned or reflected blood stain found in the seized cow
dung along with earth material & said stick.etc.

7. That prosecution has failed to support the case by contradictions in the prosecution
evidence but the accused has proved his version and corroborated by the evidence
produced by the prosecution.

8. That the witnesses produced by the prosecution are not fit and failed to proved the
case, which is present by I.O. of this case. I.o. with a biased view investigated the case .
the climax of this case arranged by the Police . all think made by Mind Game and false
desired of complainant.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to acquit them , under the circumstance and facts mention above, in the
interest of Justice.
Prayed accordingly in the interest of Justice.