- (1.) This appeal by the eight appellants is by special leave and is directed against the affirming judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Calcutta High court in appeal.
(2.) Twenty-two persons including the eight appellants were put on trial for committing murder of one Tasruddin and for inflicting injuries on his sons and other relations in an incident which took place around 11 a. m. on 22/05/1975. First Information Report was given at the police station located 14 km. away from the place of occurrence at 11.25 p. m. that night by Public Witness 1, one of the sons of the deceased. Prosecution alleged that Plot No. 348/693 in Mallickpore Mouza had a total area of 33 decimals but the same had been recorded under two separate Khatians - 203/1 covered 22 decimals in the name of Tasruddin and 203/4 was in respect of II decimals in the name of Gafoormohammed who happened to be a nephew of Tasruddin. Tasruddin purchased the II decimals of Gafoor by a registered sale deed and prosecution alleged that Tasruddin was in enjoyment of the property originally belonging to him and subsequently acquired from Gafoor by amalgamating the two. In 1975 Tasruddin had grown jute crop on the land and it was standing when the incident took place. Public Witness 1, the informant, who was the eldest son of Tasruddin, was working in the field and had engaged himself in weeding operation. Accused persons forcibly entered upon the land whereupon Public Witness 1 protested but they paid no heed. Public Witness 1 thereupon ran home and informed his father of the unlawful activities of the accused persons. Thereupon, Tasruddin accompanied by his four sons PWs 1.7, 8 and 9 and two daughters, namely, PWs 5 and 6 came near the land. Seeing them. appellant 7 Gayasuddin shouted on hearing which the other accused persons rushed to the spot with deadly weapons like farsa, sulpi, hosua, etc. Accused persons gave blows on the head and other parts of the body of Tasruddin with these deadly weapons as a result of which he sustained several injuries. When his sons and daughters went to his rescue they too were brutally assaulted. The accused persons left the place after inflicting injuries. Tasruddin ultimately succumbed to the injuries while others were hospitalised.
(3.) Twenty-two persons in all were put on trial. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses out of whom PWs 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 and 9 were eye witnesses. PWs 5 and 6 had been injured in course of the occurrence. The defence denied the prosecution allegation of unlawful assembly or their having come to the spot armed with deadly weapons. They even denied infliction of injuries either on the deceased or on his relations. They examined two witnesses in support of their plea of having been assaulted by Tasruddin and his party while being in possession of the land acquired from Gafoor. They alleged interference with their enjoyment and claimed right of private defence of person and property by pleading the prosecuting party to be trespassers. The trial court accepted the prosecution case in its material aspects but acquitted 14 of the accused persons and convicted the remaining eight under S. 304/part I/149 and 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused persons to different terms of imprisonment. The High court in appeal reconsidered the entire evidence and did not find any merit in all the submissions advanced before it. It repelled the plea of the right of private defence, and held that the appellants had caused brutal injuries on Tasruddin and his relations. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed and the convictions and sentences were confirmed.;