NICHOLAS KHADIA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused Appellant Nicholas Khadia was convicted on a charge of murder of one Marcus Khadia on July 22, 1963 at 10 A.M. in the morning. Nicholas 's father Budhu Khadia who was also charged for murder was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The motive of the murder is said to be some land dispute. The First Information Report was filed by P.W. 9 on July 23, 1963 at 11 A.M. The accused persons were arrested on the same day. The weapon of offence is said to be some heavy cutting weapon like an axe or a Falsia. The defence is right of private defence of property and person.

(2.) THE deceased Marcus Khadia was a co -villager of the two accused persons who were father and son as aforesaid. The land over which there was dispute between the parties is known as Tangarberna and was in possession of the accused persons on the date of incident July 22, 1963, It is said that there were criminal litigations between the accused persons and the deceased over the disputed land. On July 2, 1963 in the morning the deceased had engaged six labourers of the neighbouring village, went upon the disputed land with several ploughs, ploughed up the land and sowed paddy thereon. At this time the accused persons also went there armed with axe, Falsia, bow and arrows and challenged the deceased as to why be had trespassed on the land in their possession. Thereupon there was quarrel between accused persons and the deceased in the course of which the deceased assaulted the accused Appellant Nicholas with his lathi. This led to a mutual assault between the deceased and the accused Appellant Nicholas in the course of which the accused Appellant Nicholas dealt a blow with his falsia M.O. I. As a result thereof, the deceased fell down on the disputed land senseless. At this stage the ploughmen who were brought by the deceased, p.ws. 6, 10 and 11 and others stopped the accused persons from further assaulting the deceased. In course of such intervention, P.W. 6 and his companion -plough men received injuries. This was the first phase of the incident.

(3.) THE direct testimony of the eye -witnesses p.ws. 6, 10 and 11 is in substance this: After some time the deceased regained his senses and was running away from the spot for his life. Then what happened is described thus by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence (omitting immaterial portions):