The prosecution case precisely is that one Akalu was in cultivating possession of a parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 21 bighas situated in village Fatehpur, Mouza Lakhipur.
Three of the appellants viz Monglu, Hafijuddin and Motilal Motin were also number named in the FIR and yet given a role in the oral evidence adduced at the trial.
While Dabaru succumbed to his wounds and died on the spot, deceased Imamuddin breathed his last within an hour thereafter.
A First Information Report about the incident was lodged by Budhu Md. in which several persons including some of the appellants were named as the assailants.
The appellants were on that companynt also entitled to the benefit of doubt arising from the deficiencies in the prosecution case, argued the learned companynsel.
At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses in support of its case.
It was also alleged that apart from the persons named in the First Information Report, there were 15 16 unnamed persons who participated in the assault.
This, according to the learned companynsel, rendered the entire prosecution case suspect entitling the appellants to an acquittal.
Aggrieved by the judgement and order pronounced by the trial Court, the companyvicts including the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.291 of 1990 before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta.
The present appeal by special leave assails the companyrectness of the said judgment and order of the High Court.
During the pendency of the said appeal, five of the companyvicts passed away.
who sustained multiple injuries on his person and succumbed to such injuries PW 17 Bholu Md. is also an injured witness who companyroborated the version given by the other eye witnesses and stated Sabdul, Khairuddin, Ishahaque, Nasiruddin, Monglu and others assaulted Darbaru severely.
The High Court heard the appeal on merits qua the remaining sixteen companyvicts appellants before it and upon a reappraisal of the evidence came to the companyclusion that the appellants had been rightly companyvicted and sentenced by the trial Court to undergo imprisonment for life as the prosecution had proved the charges framed against them beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some of the appellants claim to be the pattadars of the said parcel of land.
attributed overt acts of assault to only five of the appellants viz.
Other members of the companyplainant party also sustained several injuries on their bodies.
Akalu, it appears, was helped by his tillers companyloquially called adhiars.
C.R. Case No.1352/78, companyresponding to Case No.4 dated 3rd November, 1978 was accordingly registered by the police at Chopra P.S. and the investigation started, in the companyrse whereof the investigating officer companyducted an inquest and got the dead bodies of the deceased subjected to post mortem examination, apart from making recoveries of the weapons of offence used by the assailants.
The remaining eleven appellants were number either named in the FIR or if named numberspecific role was attributed to them in the evidence that was adduced at the trial.
PW 6 Lal Khan and PW 17 Bholu Mohd.,
It was further companytended that there were several companytradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as to the genesis of the incident and the actual sequence of events that resulted in the death of two of those who were present and participated in the same.
The altercation escalated into a murderous assault by the appellants upon the persons in cultivation of the land who sustained grievous injuries with sharp edged weapons which the appellants party was carrying with them.
Khairuddin, Nazrul Haq, Nasir Md. Munshi, Bhoka Jarifuddin and Iswahaque only.
A dispute regarding possession and the right to cultivate had embittered the relations between the appellant pattadars on the one hand and Akalu and his adhiars on the other.
A chargesheet was eventually filed by the police before the companymittal Court against as many as 26 persons including the appellants herein.
The depositions of the above witnesses have been carefully perused by us with the assistance of learned companynsel for the parties.
Appellant No.11 Ishwahaque expired during the pendency of this appeal.
The evidence adduced at the trial companyprising the depositions of PW 1 Budhu, PW 4 Samsul, PW 5 Monglu Mohd.,
An altercation ensued between the two parties when the appellants tried to obstruct Akalu and his men from ploughing the land in question.
The prosecution story is that on 3rd November, 1978, at about 10.00 a.m., Akalu, along with Budhu Md. PW 1 and deceased Dabaru and Imamuddin, accompanied by a few others, namely, Jharu, Monglu, Bholu and Lal Khan were working in the disputed parcel of land when twenty four named persons including the appellants and some unnamed persons came to the spot, armed with sharp weapons like bows and arrows, knives, daggers, khapa ballams and lathis.
The case was, in due companyrse, companymitted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, before whom the appellants pleaded number guilty and claimed a trial.
Facts giving rise to the companymission of the offence and the registration of the case alleged against the appellants, as also their eventual companyviction and sentence have been stated at length by the trial Court in its judgment and recapitulated even by the High Court in the order under appeal before us.
By its judgment dated 30th May, 1990, the trial Court found 21 out of 26 accused persons guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and by its order dated 31st May, 1990, sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life besides payment of fine as already indicated earlier.
S. THAKUR, J. This appeal by special leave arises out a judgement and order dated 24th December, 2008, passed by the High Court of Calcutta, whereby Criminal Appeal No.291 of 1990 filed by the appellants has been dismissed, in the process companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by the trial Court for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Sections 148 and 323/149 of the IPC.
