- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Raghunathpur, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 119 of 2000 sentencing Dharani Mahato and Madhusudan Mahato to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer S.I. for one month under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge convicted appellant Mathuraprasad Mahato and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Other accused persons were acquitted by the Learned Trial Judge.
(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.3.1996 at about 11 A.M. the informant Bikash Chandra Mahato along with his brothers went to cut a "Jore" tree from their own land at village Kelapur. At that time the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons, namely, Tangi, sword, axe, iron rod etc. attacked the informant and his brothers. As a result, Swarupananda Mahato, the brother of the informant sustained severe injury and was shifted to Purulia Sadar Hospital. THE informant and his brother Sudhanshu were treated at Para hospital. It has been stated that the "Jore" tree was standing on plot No. 1175. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted. The learned Trial Judge framed charges under sections 148, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code against nine accused persons. The learned Judge also framed a separate charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Mathura Prasad Mahato. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that three persons have been convicted and the other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges. It is submitted that the learned Judge acquitted appellants of the charges under sections 148 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Mukherjee contends that so far as the charge against appellant Mathura Prasad Mahato under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no mention of the time of the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the plot number has also not been mentioned in the charge. Mr. Mukherjee submits that there was nothing to show that the injured were referred to Purulia Sadar Hospital and were treated there. It is submitted that no document from Purulia Sadar Hospital is forthcoming. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the "Jore" tree stands on plot No. 1176 as stated by the B.L.L.R.O. (P.W 3) and the report of the B.L.L.R.O. has been marked exhibit '6'.
(3.) It is submitted that none of the injured persons stated the name of the assailant before the doctor. IT is submitted that the incident took place on 23rd March, 1996 and the injured Swarupananda was examined on 16.5.1996. IT is submitted that not a single independent witness has been examined in this case. Mr. Mukherjee has referred to and cited the decision [Mamfru Chowdhury and Ors. v. King - Emperor, 1924 AIR(Cal) 323]. Mr. Siladitya Sanyal appearing on behalf of the State submits that the injured persons have been examined in this case and the injury sustained by Swrupananda Mahato (P.W. 4) was grievous. Mr. Siladitya Sanyal submits that the "Jore" tree stands on the land of Kashinath. It is contended that the complainant and his brothers were not armed with any weapon. Mr. Sanyal puts much stress on the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 9 and submits that there is corroboration in the evidence of the injured persons. Mr. Sanyal submits that there is no disparity with the ocular version. It is contended that the injury sustained by P.W. 4 on the head which was inflicted with the help of axe was sufficient to cause death, in as much as, the axe was a dangerous weapon. Mr. Sanyal has referred to and cited the decisions [Shaukat v. State of Uttaranchal, 2010 2 SCC(Cri) 1238] (Paragraph-27); (Paragraph - 12) [DineshKumar v. State of Rqjasthan, 2008 3 SCC(Cri) 472]; [Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and others v. State of Bihar, 2009 1 SCC(Cri) 339] (Paragraphs - 14, 22);;