BHAGIRATHI BURHIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Bhagirathi (appellant 1) and deceased Niranfan were brothers. Dadhi (appellant 2) and Basu (appellant 3) are the sons of Bhagirathi, Tilu alias Trilochap Barhia and Chhelia alias Rupadhar barhia (both the deceased) were the sons of Niranjan. Accused Sureswar (acquitted) is the cousin of Bhagirathi. The prosecution case is that Niranjan, due to his old age, could not cultivate the disputed Bijadill land. He entrusted it to the father of Bhagirathi for cultivation and enjoyment till his sons (deceased), who were then minors, would become major. The deceased came of age about 10 to 12 years ago and demanded the disputed land back. Bhagirathi did not return the land. This led to dispute between the parties. A punchayeti even did not improve the matter. The occurrence took place in the morning of 4-6-1963. A few days before the appellants had ploughed the eastern portion of the disputed land and sown paddy on the date of occurrence they had first gone to the disputed land and were ploughing and sowing paddy on the remaining portion of it. While the appellants were in the act of ploughing and sowing, the deceased with their ploughs entered upon the eastern portion of the disputed land on which the appellants had previously sown paddy. This led to a quarrel between Bhagirathi and Chhelia. In course of the quarrel, Bhagirathi gave a blow with an axe on the head of Chhelia who fell down on the ground. Then all the four accused dealt axe blows on Chhelia who was lying on the ground. Trilochan, who was standing near, implored the accused to spare his life; but all the accused indiscriminately assaulted him with their axes. Both Chhelia and Trilochan died instantaneously on the spot. The accused ran away from the field.

(2.) THE plea of Bhagirathi is that he was in possession of the dispiited land long since and had sown paddy on a portion of it before the date of occurrence. The deceased forcibly entered upon that portion, ploughed the same and sowed paddy despite protest. In course of the quarrel, deceased Chhelia rushed at him armed with an 'axe and caught hold of his neck. He removed the axe from the hand of chhelia and gave a stroke to him in self defence. At this time, deceased Trilochan sat on the chest of Basu and pressed his neck. He, therefore, gave a blow to trilochan with the axe of Chhelia to save Basil's life. Dadhi denied his presence on the spot. Basu pleaded that Trilochan assaulted him with a lathi as a result of which he fell down senseless and did not know what happened thereafter.

(3.) ON an analysis of the entire evidence, the learned Sessions judge in a well discussed and careful judgment held that the death of the two deceased was homicidal. This finding was not rightly assailed in view of the admitted stand of bhagirathi that he killed both the deceased with an axe. It is needless to give details of the injuries on the deceased. It would be sufficient to say that there were 4 serious lacerated wounds on the head of Chhelia and 8 incised wounds on trilochan on the head and surrounding region. The doctor (P. W. 9) was of opinion that the injuries on each were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death