STATE Vs. AMAL PARUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Government appeal filed by State of West Bengal under Section 378 sub-section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Sri B. K. Lala, Additional Sessions Judge, South 24-Parganas, Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 7(1) of 1978 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/respondents from the charge under Sections148/149/307 I.P.C. Since none appears on behalf of the State or on behalf of the appellant, we requested Mr. Subir Ganguly, learned State Panel Lawyer to appear on behalf of the State/appellant and sought the Assistance of Sri Jaydeep Biswas, learned Advocate as Amicus Curiae and with their assistance we have considered the materials-on- record and evidence and we proceeded to dispose of appeal accordingly.

(2.) The case of the appellant prosecution in short, is that on 8.05.77 at about 1 p.m. the de facto complainant Asit Parui and his other brothers namely Pravash and Netai were sowing seeds on their land at Ramkrishnapur. THEre was a long standing dispute over the right and title of this land between the de facto complainant and his brothers on one side and the accused/respondents on the other. As a result, many a litigations were pending. On 18.05.77 the complainant and his brothers were sowing seeds, the accused/respondents being equipped with deadly weapons like lathi, iron rod, dagger, spear etc. entered into the disputed land and assaulted Asit and his brothers Pravash and Netai who sustained bleeding injury. THE petition of complaint was lodged. THEreafter, investigation was held and charge-sheet was submitted and after considering the materials-on-record of this case, the charge was framed under Sections 148/149 I.P.C. against the accused/respondents and the charge read over and explained to them to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) We have carefully heard the submissions of both sides and perused the evidences on record and considered. It is thus wise to scrutinize the evidence of de facto complainant and his brothers and other witnesses. From the evidence of P.W.1 Asit Parui it appears that Bhupen Parui filed one partition suit in respect of the disputed land against the father of this P.W.1. This statement is forthcoming from the examination in chief of P.W.1. In his cross-examination he has clearly stated that he is an accused in the counter case where the accused/ respondent, Vivekananda Parui is the de facto complainant. He does not deny whether accused Vivekananda allegedly complained that he (Vivek) and other accused Amal Parui, Sanjib Parui and Ashim Mal were assaulted by the de facto complainant and his brothers. He has admitted in his cross-examination that his brother Provash and Netai have been made accused in that case. He has suppressed the fact that the present accused persons are the witnesses in that case. Similarly, this witness cannot remember the nature of paddy seeds. He denies the suggestion in the cross-examination that there was a mutual arrangement whereby the sons of Amulyababu possessed the disputed land and on the date of occurrence, Vivek or his brother-in-law Ashim Mal or Sanjib or Amal were uprooting grass from the disputed land. He has also denied that he and his brother assaulted the accused/respondent on the date of incident and thereby caused injury to them.