AGHANI RAJOWAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 81 of 1989 (S.T. No. 16 of 95) on 20.04.2000.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that compromise in presence of villagers and Pradhan in respect of the dispute over land at Muchir Khal which took place in the last year between the de facto complainant's elder brother Lula Rajowar on the one hand and Sakari Rajowar and his three sons viz. Aghani Rajowar, Chaita Rajowar and Thula Rajowar on the other, was scheduled to be held at about 10.00 a.m. on 26.08.1986, but no settlement could be made.On the same date at about 5.30 a.m. when the said Lula was knitting a net on the road near Hari Temple at the three point junction of the locality, de facto complainant (P.W.I) was standing and Baneswar Rajowar (P.W. 2), Kesto Gope (P.W.3), Gopal Gope (P.W. 7), Sakari Rajowar and his three sons viz. Aghani, Chaita and Thula were sitting by the side of Lula, Lula raised the issue of compromise which was objected by Sakari and his three sons followed by an altercation. Sakari and his three sons rushed to their house returned with a tabla in their hands. Aghani assaulted Lula with a tabla on his right shoulder and hands. When Chaita was tussling with the complainant, Thula assaulted Lula on his hand and held the complainant. Chaita assaulted the complainant on his back. Baneswar Rajowar held Aghani who leaving his tabla fled away. On hearing the hue and cry the villagers came and the matter was reported to them. Injured Lula was removed in a rickshaw to Chaklatore Hospital where he was declared dead. The matter was reported to Chowkidar Prahlad Bouri. Hence, while the case against accused Sakari Rajowar was abated on 19.11.1993, other three accused persons were charged under section 302/34 IPC and in addition accused Chaita @ Chhutu was charged under section 323 IPC.

(3.) The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws., as contended by the accused persons during their examination under section 313 Cr.PC and as deposed by D.W., is that no such incident took place. The accused persons were not in the village at the time of incident nor they were involved with the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity over the issue of land.