IMPORTANT POINT
The right to private defense can be invoked in property disputes, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, including the consideration of mutual injuries and the context of the altercation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P.

2. The aforesaid appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Accordingly, all these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The appellants Ramu Soren, Samu Soren, Satya Besra and Ruplal Hansda [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 83 of 2017] and appellant Sudhir Hansda [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 88 of 2017] and appellants Dhalku Soren @ Dholku Soren and Kamoli Murmu @ Komali Murmu [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 94 of 2017] have file these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2016 (sentence passed on 23.12.2016), passed by Sri Vijay Kumar-II, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2011, arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 521 of 2010, whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara held the appellants guilty of offence under sections 148/ 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine the appellants were directed to further undergo R.I. for one month. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Manohar Hembram alleging therein that on 23.10.2010 at about 10:00 a.m. he along with his family members had gone for fishing in the village pond, when the appellants came there and started assaulting them causing injury to the informant, Robin Hembram, Soren Hembram, Malti Murmu, Haradhan Hansda and Ramni Baski. It is specifically alleged that the appellant Sudhir Hansda gave axe blows to informant Manohar Hembram and Soren Hembram due to which they sustained injuries. Soren Hembram died during the course of treatment. The genesis of the occurrences is that both the parties jointly owned the pond where the informant and his family members were fishing but the appellants did not want to give the informant and others their share in fishing. It has also been stated that a case relating to the ownership of the pond was Sub-Judice before a competent Civil Court.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet under sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 323/ 302/ 307/ 504/ 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned C.J.M., Jamtara after taking cognizance, committed this case to the court of Sessions as it was exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

5. Charge was framed against the appellants Sudhir Hansda, Ruplal Hansda, Kamoli Murmu and Satya Besra on 28.06.2011, whereas charge against the appellants Ramu Soren, Samu Soren, Dhalku Soren @ Dholku Soren was framed on 08.06.2012 under sections 147/ 148/ 307/ 149/ 341/ 149/ 302/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

7. Malti Murmu P.W.1, Robin Hembram P.W.2, Ramni Baski P.W.3, Haradhan Hansda P.W.4, Manohar Hembram P.W.5 all are injured witnesses. They have supported the prosecution case.

Abu Talib Mian P.W.6, Subodi Tudu P.W.7, Pargan Baski P.W.8 have claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. They have supported the prosecution case.

Dewan Hembram P.W.9 is a hearsay witness.

Dr. Ganesh Prasad Mandal P.W.10 has examined the injured persons. He has proved the injury report which are Ext.- 1 series. He has also proved the injury sustained by the appellants which are Ext.- A series. Dr. Sunil Kumar P.W.11 is formal witness who had proved the medical