HIRAN KUNDU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against judgement and order dated 09.08.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Nadia in Sessions Trial No.III of 1998 arising out of Sessions Case No.12 of 1996 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months more.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 06.11.1992 at about 7.00 hours the victim Sachindra Nath Roy alias Sachin Roy was supervising the harvesting of paddy in the paddy land situated on the northern side of the village and at that time the appellants along with other accused persons assaulted Sachindra Roy with Tangi Dao, and he sustained severe bleeding injuries on his person and was admitted to Kalyani J.N.M. Hospital. On the basis of complaint Smt. Kamalabala Roy Dhantala P.S. Case No. 127/92 dated 06.11.92 under Sections 148/149/324/325 of Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation and after the death of Sachin Roy section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the array of offences in the F.I.R. and in conclusion investigation charge sheet was filed in the instant case under the aforesaid provision of law. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Nadia was framed charges against the accused persons under Section 304/34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. It was the specific defence of the accused persons that some of them namely, Niranjan Kundu, Hiren Kundu, Surendra Nath Kundu and Pran Gobinda Kundu and had suffered bleeding injuries on their person due to assault by the men and associates of the victim as they had obstructed the latter from illegally harvesting paddy cultivated by them and in the melee the victim suffered injuries and subsequently expired. The prosecution case does not give a true account of the incident leading to the death of the victim. They sought to probablise their defence by way of effective cross-examination. In conclusion of trial the Trial Court by judgement and order dated 09.08.2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. However, by the self-same judgement and order the other accused persons namely, Niranjan Kundu, Surendra Nath Kundu, Chitta Kundu, Smt. Minati Kundu and Smt. Maya Kundu stood acquitted from the said charge.

(3.) Ms. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Trial Court illegally made a distinction between the appellants and the other acquitted accused persons. She further submits that the prosecution witnesses have not given a true account of the events leading to the death of the victim as the serious injuries suffered by some of the accused persons in the course of the same transaction have not been explained by the prosecution. There is also no evidence on record to show that the incident occurred on the land of the victim and his family members and, therefore, the defence of the appellants that the victim suffered injuries in a melee when they resisted his unlawful act of harvesting paddy cultivated by them is probabilised and they are entitled to be acquitted from the charge levelled against them.