SATISH MAHATO Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.05.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura in Session Case No. 7 of October, 1985 (Session Trial No. 3 of January, 1986) convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 01.02.1985 at about 8/9 a.m. Snehalata Mahato, P.W. 4, her sister -in -law Gita Rani Mahato, P.W. 5, and mother -in -law Smt. Mithila Mahato, P.W. 6 were transplanting paddy seedlings on a portion of plot No. 100, Kastura Mouza which their family had acquired by purchase. The appellants being armed with bows, arrows, lathis and other weapons attacked them and inflicted serious injuries on each of the three women by shooting arrows and striking lathi blows on them. The incident was reported to the police station by Bibhuti Mahato, P.W. 1, husband of Snehalata Mahato, resulting in registration of first information report being Simlipal P.S. 1/6 dated 01.02.1985 under Section 147/307/149/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and one Mithila Mahato. Charge sheet was filed against the appellants and Mithila Mahato under the aforesaid sections. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions, Bankura and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura for trial and disposal. Charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 307/149 in respect of the assault upon P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code respectively for the assault upon P.W. 6 was framed. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of false implication and innocence. It was the specific defence of the appellants that plot No. 100 was under the bargadarship of the appellant, Satish Mahato and the victims had no right to transplant paddy on the said land. In support of such defence, D.W. 1 was examined who exhibited the record of rights in respect of the said plot. In conclusion of trial the learned Trial Judge by judgment and order dated 11.05.1987 convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently. By the selfsame judgment the learned Trial Judge acquitted Mithila Mahato.

(3.) MR . Ghose, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the State submits that the evidence of the injured eye -witnesses viz. P.W. 4, 5 and 6 was unshaken in cross -examination. Their evidence were corroborated by the eye -witnesses i.e. P.Ws 3 and 13. He also submits that the ocular version of the said witnesses were corroborated by the medical evidence viz. P.Ws. 10, 11 and 15. The conviction and sentence of the appellants, therefore, did not call for any interference.