S. N. GUHA RAY, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant Moral Majhi along with 17 thers was put on his trial on different charges. Moral Majhi and Gurai Majhi were charged under Section 304/34, I. P. C. , and the rest were charged under Section 304/149. I. P C. , for having killed Budhu Majhi, Moral Majhi was charged under Section 326, I. P. C. , for having caused grievous hurt to the cheek of Thatu Majhi with a cutting weapon, viz. , a tabla. Gurai Majhi was also charged with having caused such a hurt to Thatu Majhi with a cutting instrument. All the accused were further charged under Section 147, I. P. C. The jury by 5 : 2 found the appellant Moral Majhi guilty only under Section 326, I. P. C. , for having caused grievous hurt to Thatu Majhi with a cutting instrument and they unanimously found all the accused not guilty on the other counts. The learned Judge accepted the majority verdict as against Moral Majhi, convicted him under Section 326, I. P. C. , and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment. He also accepted the unanimous verdict in favour of the rest of the accused and also in favour of Moral Majhi on the other counts and acquitted them of those charges.

( 2 ) THE case for the prosecution briefly is that C. Section Plot 314 of mouza Singarpara was recorded in the record-of-right as appertaining to a mokrari raiyati belonging to four persons, namely, Nuna Majhi and Leda Majhi, sons of Nukaram Majhi, Matla, son of Ganesh Majhi and Dhana Majhi, sou of Kanka Majhi. This raiyati mokrari they held under the Kars. It appears that subsequently the interest of the Kars devolved on the Bengal Coal Company so that they became the owners of the superior interest. It further appears from the lease executed by Indra Narayan Kar, Kedar Nath Kar and Pran Krishna Kar in favour of Mahindi Roy and Jogendra Roy. Ext. 7, as far back as the 7-3-1933 in respect of C. S. Plot No. 314 and a number of other plots that these plots were wrongly recorded as appertaining to the mokrari raiyati of Nuna Majhi and that there was a title suit which ended in a compromise. That compromise accepted Nuna Majhi and others as tenants in respect of a part of the holding but as those tenants fell into arrears there was a rent suit, namely Rent Suit No, 1610 of 1929 against them in the second court of the Munsif at Bankura and in execution of the decree obtained by the Kars against those tenants ^ namely, Execution Case No, 417/623 of 1932, as appears from the Sale Certificate, Ext. 2, the landlords obtained symbolical possession through court on 19-10-1932 and it is alleged in that Patta that they were in khas possession since then. They were in khas possession of a part of the plots mentioned in the schedule and the area in their khas possession was 4. 45 acres. This they were leasing out to two persons, namely, Mahindi Roy and Jogendra Roy. Gobardhan, son of Mahindi Hoy sold to Thatu Majhi by Ext. 5 (c) dated 29-12-1952 his one-half share of this leasehold interest. The other half of the leasehold was sold by Fakir Roy, who claimed to have inherited this one-half share from his? maternal uncle Jogendra Roy, to Ramkalpa Patra by Ext. 5 (b), dated 19-4-1944 and Ramkalpa Patra sold this to Thatu Majhi by Ext. 5 (a) dated 19-6-1950. Thus Thatu Majhi by the two sale deeds acquired the entire leasehold interest of Mahindi and Jogendra Roy and as far as one can judge from the documents referred to, these leasehold interests represented a half of the plots mentioned in Ext. 7 and as there is nothing to show to the contrary it is more than probable that this one-half share o the plots was an undivided share. It is, however, the case of the prosecution that Thatu Majhi acquired the whole of Plot No. 314 as part of this leasehold. How far that is so it is difficult to say from the materials on the record. It is, however, the prosecution case that the whole of that plot was in the possession of Thatu Majhi ever since he acquired the leasehold interest of Mahindi and Jogen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document