BISHNA@ BHISWADEB MAHATO AND ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 28-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BISHNA@ BHISWADEB MAHA TO AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
OCTOBER 28, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Seclions 3.:/, 109, 1.:/8, 302, 30.:/ Part-I, 324, 325 
and 326-Murder and assault during altercation over property dispute-
C Complainants retreating but chased by accused variously armed-Injury 
also caused to one accused based on which plea of selfdefence taken-Trial 
court acquitting ail accused from charge of all offences, except one under 
Section· 148 !PC, on grounds thal there was no explanation for tnjury on the 
accused, absence of evidence of overt act by one who was accused of exhorting 
others, and that responsibility for death of deceased and injuries to others 
D was not fixed on any particular accused-High Court finding evidence of 
eye-witnesses, especially injured ones, to be believable, upheld conviction/ 
sentence of all accused under Section 148 !PC, and further convicted/ 
sentenced them variously under Sections 34, 109, 302, 304 Part-I, 324, 325 
and 326-Justification of-Held: Prosecution witnesses were believable and 
creditworthy-Some witnesses were independent and disinterested-Absence 
E of explanation about injury on accused was irrelevant as one of the 
prosecution witnesses had stated in FIR that some of them might have assaulted 
accused to save life-Non-acceptance of same in cross-examination found to 
be an attempt to escape admission of guilt in a counter case filed by accused-
Accused were aggressors and their plea of self defence of person was not 
F acceptable as both the courts below had concurrently held them guilty under 
Section 148 I PC, as also because they were armed fully, and assaulted 
complainant party after chasing them-Plea of self defence of property not 
acceptable as possession of impugned land was found to be with 
complainants-Act of accused causing injuries to deceased and others found 
to be in furtherance of a common intention-Judgment of High Court modified 
G in changing conviclion of two accused fi-0111 offences under Sections 302134 
and 3021109 to 304 Part 1 read with Section 34-Evidence Act,· 1872-
Section 6. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 145-lt is attracted when a specific , 
H 
892 
BISHNA@BHISW ADEB MAHA TO v. STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
893 
contradiction is required to be taken, but in certain cases omissions are also A 
considered to be contradictions. 
Criminal law-First Information Report-It need not be encyclopedia 
of events-It is not necessary that all relevant and irrelevant facts should be 
stated therein in detail. 
Appellants-accused bought one part of a piece ofland. The other part of 
that land from same seller was bought by complainants, who were prosecution 
witnesses also. As complainant chlimed that they were also in possession of 
B 
the part sold to appellants and were cultivating same as bargadar of original 
owner thereot; there was enmity between the two groups. One day, complainant~ 
found that some persons were cutting paddy from the said land in the presence C 
of appellants who were variously armed. As they objected to same, there was 
an altercation. There was exhortation by all accused to 'Maro Saladigoka' 
(assault the salas). Complainant party retreated to some extent, but were 
chased down. NM, PW-25 was hit on leg and back with spear by M, accused 
no. 3 and H, accused no.7, was hit on head with lathi by B, accused no.2, and D 
when he fell down, he was hit by accused no. 6 with sword causing injury on 
his head. Other accused also assaulted him with lathi. P, elder brother of NM, 
when he tried to save to him, was assaulted on leg with spear by M, and with 
lathi by B. On exhortation of K, accused no 4, N, accused no. 1, and M to 
finish otTP, R, accused no 9, took a spear from II and hit Pon his neck. Another 
person, SM, PW-1, when he tried to save NM, he was assaulted by L, accused E 
no. 7. C, PW-14, brother of P was hit on the head with arrow by B. On 
exhortation of K to finish him off, N assaulted SM and C with lathi on their 
head. P died because of the injuries. However, M was also injured during the 
altercation, SM while going back home met LM, PW-16 and RM, PW-19 and 
others, informed them about the incident, and returned back to the spot with p 
them. SM and C later lodged FIR about the incident. 
Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against appellant 
for commission of various offences. Defence of the accused was that they were 
the owners of the imp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.