Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 24th June, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raghunathpur, Purulia in Sessions Trial No.01 /2009 arising out of Sessions Case No.125 of 2008 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more.
(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants, is to the effect that on 26.4.2008 around 8.00 a.m. the appellants along with other accused persons rebuked Md. Sahir, (the victim) in filthy language. Md. Sahir raised objection. As a result, the appellants hit Sahir with fists and blows and kicks. The female members of the accused persons instigated the accused persons to kill Md. Sahir. All of a sudden Sarbajit brought a sword from their house and hurt Sahir on the chest, belly and neck. Appellant, Sanjit being armed with a 'shabal' hit Sahir on the head. Other appellants were instigating Sarbajit and Sanjit to kill Sahir. Sahir suffered bleeding injuries. Local people shifted him to the hospital where he died. On the written complaint of Md. Mustaque, brother of the victim, Raghunathpur P.S. Case No.36 of 2008 dated 26.4.2008 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants and other accused persons.
(3.) In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and other accused persons, namely, Puspa Katka, Shyamali Katka, Manju Katka and Sangita Katka. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raghunathpur, Purulia for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and other accused persons. The appellants and other accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. It was their specific defence of the appellants that some of them and other accused persons were injured and the victim had been killed in exercise of their right to private defence.;