BUDHESWAR MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eleven appellants were placed on trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Purulia to answer common charges under sections 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Against ten of them (except Budheswar), a separate charge under section 149 read with section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code was framed while against Budheswar a charge under section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code was framed. Besides, a charge under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant, Sarat Mahato. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge recorded an order of conviction and sentence against all the appellants in respect of the charges respectively framed against them and aggrieved thereby, they filed the instant appeal.

(2.) Bereft of details, the case of the prosecution is as under. At all material times, the appellants and the deceased Panchami and her family members were residents of village Sindurpur under the police station of Manbazar in the district of Purulia. On August 10, 1985, the appellants went to cultivate a land known as "Rakhergora" in their village, which was in possession of Atul Mahato, husband of Panchami, and his brother. When they were about to cultivate, Atul Mahato, the deceased Panchami and other members of their family went there and asked them to leave. The appellants refused to accede to the demand and beat them with tangi, tabla and lathi, which they were carrying. As a result, Atul, Panchami, their son Balaram and Atul's younger brother, Panchanan sustained injuries. Panchami died the same night in the Hospital where she was admitted. Immediately after the occurrence, Behula, wife of Balaram, went to the police station and lodged an information about the incident. On that information, a case was registered against the appellants, which ended in a charge-sheet and subsequent commitment to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and contended that the land in question, which they went to cultivate belonged to them and was in their possession. They further contended that it was the complainant's party, which assaulted some of the members of the family.