JAGDISH THAKUR Vs. JAGDISH MAHTO; STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1986 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No. 55/80 (56 of 1985) convicting and sentencing appellants Lelai Mahto and Jagdish Thakur to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and RI for a period of 3 years each under Section 148, IPC, appellants Jagdish Mahto, Badri Mahto and Siaram Mahto to undergo RI for a period of 3 years each under Section 148, IPC, appellants Mahadeo Mahto, Tetar Mahto, Sitaram Mahto and Sadhu Yadav to undergo RI for a period of 2 years each under Section 147, IPC and RI for a period of 6 months each under Section 323, IPC. Appellant Jagdish Mahto has further been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years under Section 324, IPC and appellants Badri Mahto and Siaram Mahto have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year each under Section 324, IPC. These two appellants have been convicted under Section 323, IPC also but no separate sentence under this head has been passed against them. All the sentences passed against each of the appellants have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 14.6.1979, informant Janak Mandal (PW 6), who at the relevant time was chaukidar of village Sukhet, at 10.15 a.m. went to Jhanjharpur police station within the district of Madhubani and lodged a fardbeyan (Ext. 5) stating therein that on the same day at about 8 a.m. a 'panchayati' was being held in connection with plucking of mangoes from a tree between appellant Lelai Mahto and Nandlal Mahto (PW 8). During the course of 'panchayati' an altercation took place between both of them because both were claiming the mango tree. During the course of this altercation, appellant Lelai Mahto pushed Sundarlal Mahto, the nephew of Nandlal Mahto, by putting his hand on his neck and thereafter, on the order of appellant Lelai Mahto all other appellants variously armed with 'bhala', 'gransa', 'lathi' and forming unlawful assembly came there. Thereafter, appellant Lelai Mahto ordered other appellants to assault and kill on which appellants Badri Mahto, Jagdish Mahto, Tetar Mahto and Siaram Mahto, who were armed with 'gransa' assaulted Nandlal Mahto and other appellants assaulted him with lathi. Appellants Jagdish Mahto, Siaram Mahto and Badri Mahto assaulted Chingi Mahto (PW 5). Appellant Badri Mahto assaulted Sukhdeo Mahto (PW 3). Appellants Jagdish Mahto, Lelai Mahto and Badri Mahto assaulted Sundarlal Mahto and cut his neck with 'gransa' and when after receiving injury Sundarlal Mahto tried to escape by running, he fell down in a field and died there. The occurrence was witnessed by Shivan Deo (PW 1), Kujai Mahto (PW 7), Satyadeo Mahto (PW 2) and Shiv Nandan Mahto (not examined). On the basis of this fardbeyan, a case under Sections 147,149,148 and 302, IPC was registered against all the appellants and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges under Sections 302/149, IPC against all the nine appellants, additional charge under Section 302, IPC against appellants Jagdish Thakur, Lelai Mahto, Badri Mahto and Jagdish Mahto for committing murder of Sundarlal Mahto, charge under Section 324, IPC against appellant Badri Mahto for voluntarily causing hurt to Chingi Mahto by means of 'gransa', charge under Section 324, IPC against appellants Badri Mahto, Jagdish Mahto, Tetar Mahto and Siaram Mahto for voluntarily causing hurt to Nandlal Mahto by means of 'gransa', charge under Section 323, IPC against appellants Mahadeo Mahto, Sadhu Yadav and Sitaram Mahto for voluntarily causing hurt to Sukhdeo Mahto and charge under Sections 323 and 325 against appellants Jagdish Mahto, Badri Mahto and Siaram Mahto for voluntarily causing grievous hurt and voluntarily causing hurt to Chingi Mahto were framed. The appellants denied the charges and their case before the Court below was that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of grudge and enmity. The Court below after trial, found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Chandan Prasad Yadav (PW 9) and Bishwanath Thakur (PW 11) are formal witnesses, who have proved the signatures of Ram Krishna Mahto (Ext. 3), signatures of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh (Ext.3/1) and a command certificate (Ext. 4) in the pen and signature of Arjun Prasad, the then officer-in-charge of Jhanjharpur police station. Pujai Mahto (PW 7) and Laxmi Narayan Mahto (PW 10) have been tendered. Dr. Manindra Bhatt (PW 14) had held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sundarlal Mahto. Dr. Ram Narayan Jha (PW 13) is the Doctor, who had examined injured Nandlal Mahto (PW 8), Chingi Mahto (PW 5) and Sukhdeo Mahto (PW 3). Arjun Prasad (PW 12) is the IO in this case Janak Mandal (PW 6) is the informant. Shivan Deo (PW 1), Satyadeo Mahto (PW2), Sukhdeo Mahto (PW 3), Jageshwar Mahto (PW 4), Chingi Mahto (PW 5) and Nandlal Mahto (PW 8) are said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Out of them Sukhdeo Mahto (PW 3), Chingi Mahto (PW 5) and Nandlal Mahto (PW 8) are said to be the injured persons.