SHAYAM KAMAL KHAWAS Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows : The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in the Sessions Case No. 77/1995 (ST 16/96) on 13.09.2001.

(2.) A thumbnail sketch of the prosecution case is that on 31.08.1993, Tuesday, at about 8-30 p.m. accused Anadi, Chutan, Jagannath, Buka & Shaktipada came to the residence of the de facto-complainant and informed her parents that they would go to bokaro by a train at 10-00 p.m. for settlement of dispute amongst their brothers in presence of Lakhan & Shakti. She and her mother on good faith allowed her father Funga to go with them and they accompanied those accused persons and her father upto Sunri Dam where on seeing accused Shyamkamal, Rasraj, Shambhu, Trilochan & 2/3 unknown persons, they became frightened. The accused persons asked them not to be worried as they would bring back Phunga within two days. As Phunga did not return till 12-00 hrs. on 2.9.1993, the de facto-complainant and her mother asked for his where abouts from the accused persons who gave them to understand that he would came back within a day. On receipt of an information that a dead body was lying in a paddy field by the side of jungle, the de facto complainant had been there and found the dead body of her father followed by her reporting the matter to the P.S. through one Gangadhar Rajak and then lodging a complaint. Hence, all the accused persons were charged under Sections 364/34, 302/34 & 201/34 I.P.C.

(3.) The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws. 1 & 5 and as contended by the accused persons during their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C., is that on the relevant night neither accused Anadi & four others went to the house of de facto complainant and took her father away for Bokaro for settlement of "bhaiyadi" dispute nor she and her mother accompanied them and her father upto Sunri Bundh nor they found four other accused persons viz. Shyamkamal, Trilochan , Shambhu & Rasraj there. The family of the de facto complainant had no "bhaiyadi" dispute with accused Chutan, Buka & Anadi. Accused Jagannath who is a pump operator of Chitmu Pump House, stayed there at night and he was not present at Sunri Dam. The present case has been filed falsely at the instance of Anandamargis of the locality and local people.