Sengupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia, Krishnanagar in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1995 (Sessions ; Trial No. II of June, 1996) thereby convicting the accused appellants under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing appellant No.1 Paltu Sheikh to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Rafat Sheikh and Mohiruddln Sheikh to suffer imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, in default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months.
(2.) It would be relevant and convenient to reproduce, in brief, the factual scenario of the case as highlighted by the prosecution. P.W.1 Anwara Bibi lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Karimpur Police Station on 2.6.94 to the effect that on the said date at about 10.00 A.M. when her son Jahir Sheikh was engaged in ploughing their own land, accused Rafat Sheikh, Mahiruddin Sheikh and Paltu Sheikh, who are the residents of the same village, protested and asked Jahir Sheikh not to plough the said land. Over this issue, there was a hot exchange of words amongst them and in course of such quarrel accused persons assaulted her son with a bamboo pole on his head causing bleeding injury. Injured Jahir Sheikh was thereafter brought to Karimpur Hospital for treatment, but seeing the serious condition of the patient the concerned doctor of Karimpur Hospital advised to take him to Berhampur Sadar Hospital for treatment. Arrangements were made to take him to Berhampur Hospital but on the way to hospital injured Jahir Sheikh expired. The ejahar was written by one Belial Hossain (P.W.8) and on the basis of such complaint, FIR was registered with Karimpur P.S. under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 325/34/304, I.P.C. Charge was framed by the learned trial Judge under Section 304/34, I.P.C.
(3.) To bring home the charge against the accused persons prosecution examined 10 witnesses including the medical officer and the investigating officer. None was examined on behalf of the defence and the defence plea was of innocence and false implication.;