- (1.) ALL the appellants stand convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, seven years and three years respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trail No. 103 of 1999. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 21.9.1998, deceased Parang Hembrom along with his two sons, P.W.5 and P.W. 7, was ploughing land belonging to his wife (P.W.6) Mem Besra situated in Mauza - Pokherya, Manjhee tola, Police Station - Maheshpur, District - Pakur where all of a sudden, the appellants came there armed variously and started assaulting them. According to the prosecution case, the deceased was assaulted with lathi by appellant No. 1 Piru Some Besra on his head while other appellants assaulted P.W.5 and P.W.7. Further stated when the deceased fell down on the ground, appellant No. 1 caught hold of his head and appellant No. 4 Chhode Besra caught hold of his legs, after which appellant No. 3 Ramlal Besra cut the neck of the deceased with the Farsa in his hand. The incident was seen by the informant, who raised alarms on which villagers started assembling, then the appellants fled away. The reasons behind the occurrence is said to be the dispute between the informant and the appellants, who were agnates from her father's side and the land belonging to her was being claimed by them. It is further stated that the deceased was cultivating the land as Ghar Jamai, a system prevalent in that area of Santhal Pargana. The matter was reported to village Pradhan and further police station, on which the Officer -in -Charge of Maheshpur Police Station, Neyaz Ahmad, arrived at and recorded the statement of P.W.6 in presence of villagers including the village Pradhan (P.W.3). The police further prepared inquest report of the dead body, seized weapons used along with bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence and referred the injured, P.W.5 and P.W. 7, for their treatment. Accordingly, Maheshpur Police Station Case No. 85 of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The Police after investigation finally submitted charge sheet against all the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The cases of the appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions whereas charge was framed against them on 26th of November 1999. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution at the instance of P.W.3, the village Pradhan. The trial court after examining the witnesses found and held all of them guilty for the offences under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced as stated above.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial court has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses and failed to consider that the appellants have been implicated in this case at the instance of P.W.3, the village Pradhan. It has also been stressed before us that in absence of the Investigating Officer of the present case and non -production of the bloodstained soil etc., adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution. Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted strenuously that in the present case where alleged offence took place in the village in broad daylight, independent villagers should have been examined as witnesses. It is also submitted that in absence of the Forensic report of the bloodstained soil, adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution. Learned Counsel further submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted, the participation of appellant Nos. 2, 5 and 6 having common object to cause death cannot be assumed. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, the evidence on record specifically mentioned that these three appellants did not take part in actual commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that all the appellants having remained in custody after their conviction have suffered sufficiently.;