SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.04.2010 and 30.04.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Malda in Sessions Trial Court 60 (9)/07 arising out of Sessions Case No. 248/07, the appellants have come before this Court, ventilating their grievances, that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence, legal and factual aspects in its proper perspectives.
(2.) Before we advert to the grievances of the appellants, which are mirror image of what was argued before the trial court, it would be wise to traverse through the relevant facts and events. Therefore, the scenario of the case has to have narration. Basis for setting the law into motion is the written complaint lodged by the defacto complainant disclosing that there was a dispute regarding stealing of a female cow by and between the parties. On 18.11.1999 at or about 8.00 a.m. a quarrel took place between Santana Sarkar, wife of the younger brother of the defacto complainant and Sushila Das, wife of Sunil Das, near a village-well. When they were abusing filthy language upon Santana Sarkar, the victim protested to their such activities and the accused persons then attacked the victim with lathi, hasua, spear etc. To save himself from the clutches of the accused/appellants the victim took to his heels towards 'Adibasi Para'. The accused persons chased him and mercilessly began to assault him. As a result, he succumbed to his injuries on his way to hospital, he breathed his last. Ventilating this ill-episode, the defacto complainant lodged the F.I.R. and set the law into motion.
(3.) Pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, the accused persons were put in trial. Charges were framed against them and the same were read over and explained to the accused/appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.;