LAWS(CAL)-1968-3-5

SIVAPADA SENAPATI Vs. STATE

Decided On March 22, 1968
SIVAPADA SENAPATI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against conviction under Section 302/149 I. P. C. The appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellants Shivapada Senapati and Motilal Loher were also convicted under Section 148 I. P. C. and the rest of the appellants under Section 147 I. P. C., but no separate sentence was inflicted.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows; The deceased Monsaram Mahato and his sons, deceased Abhoy, Debu alias Debendra and Jagat and Parikshit were in possession of a paddy field known as Barakhet and the adjoining khets within Burir-bandh-namo khet. This appertained to a Jama of 11-30 acres in Plot No. 1460 of Manpur Mouza. Monsaram took settlement of the land from Panchakote Raj Estate at a rental of Rs. 35 and he got an Amalnama dated Ppus 17, 1345 B.S. They were in possession of the land for cultivation. On 27th Sraban, 1371 B. S. in the morning, corresponding to August 12, 1964 Mansaram with his sons Abhoy, Debu and Jagat and his brother Paresh went to the field for scraping the ail. While they were so engaged in scraping the western ail of the Burir-bandh-namo khet, the appellants and others -- about forty in number--arrived at the spot armed with various weapons including tangis, spears, axes and lathis. They had six ploughs with them and they started cultivating the land. Mansaram and his sons protested and asked them not to plough their land and also asserted that they would not allow them to plough the land. This annoyed the appellants and others and Sadananda who has since been acquitted, gave an order for assaulting Mansaram and his sons. Abhoy, Mansaram and Jagat were assaulted by some of the accused persons with tangis, spears, axes and lathis and they fell down on the khet with bleeding injuries on their persons. Paresh and Debu also came up and opposed the assailants. They too were assaulted by them with the weapons as a result of which they also fell down there with bleeding injuries. After this the appellants and others fled away. Abhoy, Mansaram and Jagat died soon after on the land. Rani Maha-tani, the daughter of Abhoy saw the occurrence from the other ail and she immediately reported the incident to Dibakar, her father's cousin at his house. She then came back to the spot and gradually other persons of the family also came. Paresh was unable to speak but Debu told him of the assault on him and others by naming the assailants. Dibakar went to Hura police station and lodged a F. I. R. before an A. S. I. of Police. This Police Officer came to the spot and made arrangement for removing the dead bodies to the Purulia Morgue for post-mortem examination. Investigation was started and some seizures were made. Witnesses were examined and some arrests were made that very night. Gradually the police arrested the other persons on the basis of first information report and after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against 39 persons for various charges for murder and also for rioting armed with deadly weapons. The learned Judge framed a fresh charge under Section 302/149 I. P. C. and also under Section 304/149 I. P. C. Nine persons who were appellants, were convicted while the remaining 30 were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The defence is a plea of innocence. They pleaded that Shivapada Senapati and his brothers were in possession of the lands within Burirbandhnamo Khet and had already ploughed the lands and rendered them fit for transplantation of paddy seedlings prior to the date of occurrence and on the date of occurrence they went to the land with 8 ploughs and several kamins for the purpose of transplantation. While they were getting the lands ploughed, Mansaram along with his sons and brothers and others, 15/16 in number, came to the land and attacked the ploughmen and others. Shivapada opposed them and he was assaulted by Mansaram with lathi on his head. Kangal and Basudeb also sustained injuries. But they were ultimately implicated in the case over earlier grudge and litigation and over obstruction in their attempt to take forcible possession of the land.