(1.) In this case ten persons were put upon their trial in connexion with a riot of a familiar type. The complainant Nidon Nath makes the case that on 6 November, 1927, he and certain relations went to cut paddy from plot 273 when the accused armed with lathis (except Mahatab who had a pointed mooli and accused 1 Tota Meah Chowdhury who was carrying a stick) came and objected to the cutting of the paddy. The case is that after the accused Yakub had seized the sickle from Nidon and Moizuddin had seized the sickle from another person of the complainant's party they began beating Nidon ; that one Pachikul Huq or Pachu came up and reproved the accused ; whereupon Tota Meah Chowdhury, accused 1. who was coming up from the rear ordered his son Mahatab, accused 2, to kill Pachu ; and that thereupon Mahatab drove the mooli he held into the stomach of Pachu near the navel, in consequence of which injury the man afterwards died.
(2.) It appears that there had been litigation between the complainant and Tota Meah about this plot and it appears also that when Pachu had been taken away to a certain house and then taken thence to a hospital, at about 6-45 on the following morning he made a dying declaration. He made another a little later on at about 8 o clock. At the same time Nidon and one Kholu went to the thane and lodged a complaint, and a cross-complaint by one Jamiruddi was lodged against the party of the complainant.
(3.) The defence case is that there was an occurrence, that the occurrence was on a different field altogether and, in particular that the man Pachu died, not because accused 2 or accused 1 had anything to do with the master-the defence case is that they were not there -but because another of the accused, namely, Moizuddin, accused 4, had a pointed bamboo and on this being used against him he picked it up and threw it as a missile ; that Moizuddin does not know what the result of this missile was but thinks no doubt, that is the way in which Pachu met his death.