KINARAM DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four appellants in this case were Jointly tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts. The trial was with the aid of a Jury. The verdict of the Jury was unanimous. In consequence of the verdict, all the four appellants, namely, (1) Kinaram Das (2) Sanchitram Das (3) Uttamchandra Das and (4) Bhebela Koch, were found guilty and convicted Under Section 304, Part I, IPC read with Section 34, IPC They were sentenced to different periods of imprisonment ranging from two to six years, Sanchit Das, appellant No, 2, was further found guilty Under Section 323, I.P.C. The conviction for this offence was for causing hurt to Ningnaram. All the four appellants have jointly appealed from their convictions and sentences.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution case was that on 13 -12 -51, Bengaram Keot (deceased) was reaping paddy in his own field. His brother, Ningnaram (P.W. 1) was also in his land and reaping his paddy. The field of the accused was close to the field of the deceased and his brother. All the four accused also were reaping paddy. It was towards the evening when Bengaram (deceased) decided to go bacK home. He untied his bullocks. One of these bullocks strayed into the pulse field of Kinaram accused. Bengaram followed the bullock in order to take it out of the field of Kinaram. Noticing this, Kinaram (accused) abused Bengaram (deceased). Witnesses from the prosecution side have admitted that Bengaram (deceased) also abused Kinaram. There was thus exchange of abusive language.

(3.) MR . Ahmed first tried to bring to our notice certain discrepancies appearing in the statements of prosecution witnesses. His case was that these discrepancies were either not brought to the notice of the Jury or at least they were not brought out in the summing up in a pointed manner. This, according to him, could easily lead to an error in the verdict. The discrepancies pointed out are not material. They are on minor points; they are extremely few. The prosecution version is very simple. It is that Kinaram (accused), after exchanging abusive language with the deceased, called his companions to come and beat the deceased, and they participated in it. The only point is what, if any, particular injuries were caused by any of the accused. On this point, the prosecution version is lacking in details. From the stage of the First Information Report up to the final stage when the witnesses were examined at the trial, no attempt was made by the prosecution witnesses to ascribe or attribute particular blows or injuries to any of the accused other than Sanchitram. About him, it is said that he gave the first blow. His lathi blow landed on the head of Bengaram. The medical evidence is that this injury resulted in the death of the deceased; it caused the fracture. The minor contradictions, in these circumstances, would not amount to any serious misdirections, nor could It be said that they have caused any error in the verdict or any failure or miscarriage of justice.