HIKIM SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case for the prosecution is that plot No. 695 at Kenda known as Uparbahal or Jingasthan belonged to one Jadab Singh, who died leaving behind two sons, Gopal and Madhu Singh. Gopal is dead and his only son is Radhagobinda. Madhu died leaving behind his widow and three sons, Bhutnath, and (the two accused) Hikim and Mukunda, and two daughters, Giribala and Mukreswari. Bhutnath is dead. The Title Suit No. 100 of 1964 was filed in the Sub Judge's Court at Purulia for partition of the joint properties of Radhagobinda and of his co -sharers. The northern portion of that land bearing the plot No. 695 was in the actual possession of the accused Hikim and Mukunda and the southern portion belonged to Radhagobinda. Before that partition suit was filed he sold that southern portion to Kinu and the latter possessed it. A decree for partition was passed and the northern portion was allotted to Hikim and Madhu, while the southern block was given to Radhagobinda Singh. On the 15th Jaistha, 1382 B. S. corresponding to 30 -5 -1975 at about 7 a. m. Kinu his two sons, Manohar, Arun, and Radhagobinda went to the southern portion of the disputed plot No. 695, i. e., on the case land, for preparing the same for cultivation. Suddenly the accused Mukreswari, Hikim, Mukunda and their mother, Lakhi Bala appeared there being armed with tangi, axe and lathi and forbade Radhagobinda and others from cultivating the disputed land They did not pay any heed to the same. Thereupon they attacked Radhagobinda, Kinu, Manohar and Arun, Lakshmibala, Hikim and Mukunda struck Arun with lathi and tangis and Mukunda inflicted injuries on Radhagobinda with tangi. He also caused bleeding injury to Manohar. Mukreswari assaulted Manohar with a lathi. Arun expired at the spot. Hikim injured Kinu. Radhagobinda went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. at 8 a. m. Charge was framed against Hikim, Mukunda and Lakhi Bala under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. Hikim was further charged under Section 325 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Kinu Singh. Mukunda was also charged under Section 325 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Radhagobinda Singh. Mukunda was further charged under Section 352 of the Code for assaulting Manohar Singh. Mukreswari was also charged under Section 323 for voluntarily causing hurt to Manohar.

(2.) THE defence was that the accused were not guilty. The plea was that Hikim and Mukunda were in actual possession of the disputed land. The land was already ploughed and kept ready by them. Arun, Radhagobinda and the members of their family were the aggressors. They filed a counter case for the injuries sustained by them, vide Ext. 13.

(3.) IT has been argued by Mr. Prasun Chandra Ghosh appearing on behalf of the appellants that the disputed land was in the actual cultivation of Hikim and Mukunda. Radhagobinda did not live in that village and Kinu also did not possess the land. Radhagobinda, Kinu and their relations were the aggressors. The evidence given by P. Ws. cannot be believed. The entire family of the accused was falsely dragged in. At all events the court should find that there was a right of private defence because the evidence of doctor shows that Hikim and Mukunda sustained serious injuries on their persons. So they should be acquitted.