TUSHAR KANTI BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application has been filed by the accused-petitioner Tushar Kanti Banerjee against the judgment and order passed by the Sfessions Judge, Purulia, in criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1975 affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions judge in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1975. The petitioner was convicted under section 304 Pt. I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that P. W. 1 Lachu Gharain and others cultivate some lands in Mouza matiara as Bhagchasis for a number of years. They claim to have cultivated die said lands and on 23. 11. 74 when lachu Gharain and others including lachu's son Bharat went to cut paddy produced by them on those lands the accused came there with a gun and in order to resist them from cutting the paddy he fired two rounds and as a result thereof, Lachu's son Bharat got injured and ultimately Bharat died that very day on account of the injuries.

(3.) THE defence case is that Lachu gharain and others never cultivated the lands in question as bargadars under the accused. It was the accused who had the lands cultivated and grew paddy on those lands. The story of possession of the land by Lachu and others has been denied. It was Lachu Gharain and others who went to assault the accused and unlawfully trespassed on the lands of the accused and in fact assaulted him. The defence case further is that Gharains tried to snatch away the gun from the accused and that during a scuffle two shots were fired accidentally. The case appearing in the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is that in the night proceeding the date of occurence, he got information that a tiger had arrived. In the morning he loaded his gun and proceeded along the road, while he was proceeding, he was attacked from behind by the deceased Bhart, his farther and others who assaulted him. Bharat and his father caught the gun and began pulling it. The accused caught in the middle portion of the gun and the trigger of the gun acted accidentally. He did not shoot. Several witnesses were examined both on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused. After trial the assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused finding him guilty as indicated earlier. An appeal was taken against that order of conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal.