The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the importance of consistent and reliable evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2013 and 23.04.2013 respectively passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raghunathpur, District – Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2011 arising out of Sessions Case No. 265 of 2006 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 325/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting for the offence punishable under Sections 304(II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-in default of whereof 1 year more rigorous imprisonment with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in brief was that –

a) On 01.12.2002 at about 06:00 a.m. one Purabala Mahata went to Chaudhury Bandh Pukur for washing her hands and face, at more or less the same time one Thandmoni Mahata came to the spot and an altercation followed between the two and when such altercation was going on the appellants came to the place of occurrence and started assaulting the said Purabala with “Lathi”.

b) When the appellants were assaulting Purabala, Haren Mahata, the de-facto complainant Fatik Chandra Mahata and his son Bikash Mahata came to the spot on hearing the hue and cry raised by Purabala.

c) The said Fatik Chandra Mahata, Haren Mahata and Bikash Mahata tried to rescue and save the said Purabala Mahata.

d) The appellants assaulted Fatik Chandra Mahata, his son Bikash Mahata and his brother Haren Mahata with Lathi etc. As a result Purabala and Haren Mahata sustained severe bleeding injuries.

e) The de-facto complainant Fatik Chandra Mahata and his son Bikash also sustained injury. Injured Fatik and Purabala were medically treated in the Santaldih Thermal Power Hospital. The injury of Haren Mahata was serious in nature and he had to be referred to Bokaro Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 10.12.2002.

f) Based on the complaint lodged by de-facto complainant Fatik Mahata, Santaldih P.S. Case No. 40 of 2002 dated 01.12.2002 under Section 341/323/325/506 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated.

g) Thereafter police investigated the case and submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused persons under Sections 341/323/325/304/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

h) Charges were framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

i) The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raghunathpur, Purulia upon a full dressed trial and contested hearing was pleased to acquit one of the accused, Thandamoni, under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and convicted the other appellants persons namely Kailash Mahata, Rabin Mahata, Bijay Mahata and Satish Mahata under Sections 323/304 (II)/34 of the Indian Penal code and accordingly the said accused persons were taken into custody.

j) The prosecution in order to prove its case cited seven witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that –

i. The accused persons were acting in exercise of their right of self-defence after having observed that there was a free fight between the two groups.

ii. The F.I.R was sent to the Learned Magistrate after fifteen days and not immediately important documents were not exhibited.

iii. The circumstances of the case had shown that the right of self defence was legitimately exercised in the light of the fact that there was an open fight between the appellants and the de-facto complainant and his associates.

iv. Learned Sessions Judge erred in law in failing to give due weight to the evidence of the PW-1 who turned hostile after having observed that nothing reliable came out from his mouth to support the prosecution case although he had been cross examined by the prosecution, with the permission of the Learned Court.

v. Learned Sessions Judge co