JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. - (1.) THE appeal is directed against Judgement and order dated 06.08.2008 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in default, simple imprisonment for 6 months.
(2.) PROSECUTION case against the appellants is as follows : - On 06.03.2007 at about 10.30 a.m. one Anil Mishra (PW 2) lodged a written complaint against the appellants and other accused persons alleging that on 06.03.2007 at about 8.30 a.m. they brutally assaulted his brother Dilip Mishra (deceased), his wife Mina Mishra and his other brother Sunil Mishra by iron rod. Consequently his brother Dilip sustained serious injuries and was admitted at Purulia Sadar Hospital and thereafter transferred to higher medical centre, namely, K. M. Memorial Hospital at Chas. On the basis of the written complaint of Anil Mishra, first information report being Purulia P.S. case No. 23/2007 dated 06.03.1997 under Sections 147/148/149/326/304 of Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation. As the victim died, Section 304 of Indian Penal Code was added. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and seven other accused persons for commission of offences under sections 147/325/304/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) THE case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions, Purulia and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court no.2, Purulia for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Section 147/325/304/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and other accused persons namely Ashok Sharma, Manoj Sharma, Dilip Sharma, Santosh Sharma, Sabita Sharma, Rekha Sharma and Sushila Sharma. The appellants and other accused persons pleaded 'not guilty ' and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.;