The materials which were brought on record to prove circumstantial evidence in the case by the prosecution were That some of the appellants were chasing the deceased with others 2 So called Sulahanama was prepared which had been signed inter alia by PW 2, PW 3 and others representing that they would number file any companyplaint against the appellants.
However, on the intervention of the owner of the tea stall the boys left the shop and went to the watch repairing shop belonging to Nirmal Chanda PW4.
The brother of the deceased PW1 lodged a first information report wherein he named Bhuttu describing him as a younger brother of Ganesh , Ratan Das Gupta s o unknown, Billo Deb s o unknown, Kartik Deb s o unknown and 20/25 others.
Thereafter the deceased Moti, Sushendra PW3, Babul and Makhan Lal PW2 entered into a tea stall belonging to Siba Prasad Shome PW7 to have tea.
Gauaranga s o Makhan Chanda PW2 in the meantime came and informed his father that the said Tunu Chanda and Montu Chanda had quarrelled and broke a glass pane of his showroom.
When Moti deceased in a bid to apologize touched the feet of accused Bhuttu, Ratan Das asked him to catch hold of him and they started assaulting him.
He found the following anti mortem injuries on the dead body of Moti deceased Lacerated injury right ear 2 x cm.
He merely stated that in the night a boy came to him and wanted a torch light which was given and the same was returned to him after 15 20 minutes.
He found his younger brother Sushendra PW3, Babul Chanda and deceased Moti Suklabaidya in front of his shop.
1 which was seized by the police from near the place where the dead body was found.
Subdwal hermonage on left side on left side of brain present.
In the meantime, some ladies walked therein and asked for separate seats whereupon Bhuttu asked the abovementioned four boys to vacate the cabin which led to an altercation.
Apart from supporting the statements made in the first information report, he stated that appellant Ratanlal Chanda took his signature on a written paper which companytained an assurance on their behalf that numbercase would be filed in relation to the incident.
The latter informed them that Tunu Chanda and Montu Chanda had assaulted him in front of a jewellery shop belonging to Makhan Chanda PW2.
1 and 2 companyld be caused by material Ex.
Having asked the reason of quarrel and companysequent breaking of the glass of the show room, he was informed that the dispute has been settled by Ambika Sahu PW6.
The aforementioned persons were taking tea in a cabin of the tea stall.
On the next morning on receiving an information that a dead body was lying near a canal, they went to the spot and found the same to be that of Moti deceased .
According to the prosecution case, accused Bhuttu came again with Ratan Das, Billu and Kartik and some other persons.
Bhuttu Raju Singh, who is admittedly the younger brother of one Ganesh was employed in the said shop as a servant.
A skull was healthy.
They came out about half an hour thereafter and found the market area deserted.
They asked Moti deceased and others to companye out of the shop whereupon Nirmal PW4 intervened and impressed upon Moti and others to seek their apology.
PW 2 had further stated before him that from inside the shop he had felt that some people were chasing the deceased.
The deceased went to join Durga Puja festival along with Sushendra Chandra PW3 and Babul Chanda.
Tapan Chanda was also assaulted by them.
Cut injury left lobule of ear 1 x x cm.
He was the owner of a hotel at Chandranathpur Bazar.
He allegedly heard cries of a quarrel.
PW 11 Fazlur Rahman is the Investigating Officer.
Thereafter, they went to the house of Moti deceased and inquired from his brother PW1 as to whether he had returned.
PW 10 Swapan Chakraborty is an Asstt.
Bhuttu, however, came again and scolded Moti, whereupon Nirmal Chanda PW 4 again intervened.
He was declared hostile.
He further stated that he saw the accused persons chasing the deceased towards Chandranathpur Railway Station.
They met with one Tapan Chanda near Chandranathpur Railway Station.
The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses.
The prosecution witnesses and others in the meantime, bolted themselves inside the shop.
On being informed that he had number, they went to the house of Ambika Prasad PW6 who advised them to search for him.
On the intervention of the owner of the said watch repairing shop the matter subsided.
He was the Station Master of Railway Station.
According to him injury Nos.
PW 1 is the informant.
The appellant Bhuttu came there and wanted to know as to why he made companyplaint to his employer about the earlier incident.
Makhan Lal PW 2 immediately came to the Bazar.
With Criminal Appeal Nos.
He further alleged that the appellant Ujjal had escorted them from the market.
840/2005, 841/2005, 842/2005 and 251/2005.
There was numberdirect evidence.
In the First Information Report or in the evidence, appellants Munna and Ujjal were number named.
x whole thickness blood drop are ardent to tissue.
It was a root of a tree.
Station Master.
3.10.1995 was the NAVMI.
He had also asked him to companye out of the shop.
The appellants were put on trial.
He stated that later on the matter was settled amicably.
