BINDESHWARI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred against the common judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the then Second Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 81/1990 (114/91) whereby and where under all the six appellants in both the appeals had been convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Further, appellant Bindeshwar Mahto in Cr. Appeal No. 165/93 (R) had been convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellants, Pachhu Mahto and Dhupnath Mahto had been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one year. Dhupnath Mahto had further been convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year. The other appellants Jhari Mahto had died during the pendency of this appeal and, as such, appeal has abated against him. In the other appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1993 (R) Appellant Paklu Mahto had been further convicted under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years and Balram Mahto had been convicted under Section 147 of the IPC and also under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year each. In the appeal at the time of admission all the four appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1993 (R) had been granted bail. In respect of two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1993 (R), they had been granted provisional bail for some time but they are in custody during the hearing of these appeals. As both the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment, they have been heard together analogous.

(2.) In total 10 persons had faced trial before the Sessions Court. Four other accused-persons, namely, Dhano Mahto, Madho Mahto, Narayan Mahto and Udho Mahto have been granted acquittal of all the charges as no evidence was there from the side of the prosecution against them. Both the accused and the prosecution party hailed from the same village Garu situated within Kanke Police Station in the district of Ranchi. The occurrence had also taken place within the village in the Gali leading to the house of the accused Jhari Mahto and Balram Mahto who are father and son admittedly. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15-8-1988 at about 7.45 p.m. one Bhubneshwar Mahto a counsel of the Informant Sonelal Mahto had gone to the shop of one Ghanshyam Mahto in the same village for some purchase. At about 8 p.m. Parasnath Mahto P.W. 2 alleged to have informed the informant at the house of the informant that accused Ghupnath Mahto, Bindeshwar Mahto, Narayan Mahto, Dhaniram Ali, Dhana Mahto, Balram Mahto, Paklu Mahto and Pachu Mahto were assaulting Bhubneshwar Mahto by iron pipes and Danta behind the house of one Ganesh Mahto. Hearing this, the deceased Babulal Mahto rushed there along with Parasnath Mahto but within ten minutes, Parasnath Mahto again rushed running to the house of the Informant stating that all the accused-persons as mentioned above had assaulted Bhubneshwar Mahto and fell him to the ground and then they dragged Babulal Mahto assaulting him to the house of accused Balram Mahto and were assaulting him inside the house under closed doors and Babulal Mahto was raising alarm and cries from inside the bolted doors. On the aforesaid information, Sonelal Mahto informant went to the house of accused Balram Mahto along with Maino Mahto wife of Babulal Mahto, his own wife Ratio Devi and sister Kandari Devi and when they reached there they found Bhubneshwar Mahto lying injured behind the house of Ganesh Mahto near the house of accused Balram Mahto. On being asked, Bhubneshwar Mahto told them that accused Ghupnath Mahto and others had assaulted him by Balua and lathi, etc. Then the Informant and his companions went to the doors of the accused Balram Mahto and asked him to open the doors and release Babulal Mahto but the accused Balram Mahto shouted from inside the house that Babulal Mahto was not there. In the meantime, other accused-persons arrived there being armed with lathi and Danta and assaulted the informant and his companions, as a result of which informant and his companions fled away and reported one Ghanshyam Mahto, Lalko Mahto, Shyamlal Mahto and Fulinder Mahto about the alleged occurrence. Then, the Informant after a while again went to the house of accused Balram mahto along with the above named persons and tried to get the doors of the house opened but accused Balram Mahto, Dhana Mahto and Jhari Mahto did not open the doors. Then, the informant and others peeped in through the doors and in the light of torch, they saw Babulal Mahto lying dead in the Dheba of the house of accused Balram Mahto in a pool of blood. Then, the informant asking the villagers to keep a watch there, want to village Sukur Hutu reported one Madhulal Mahto another Babulal Mahto and Jidwalvan Munda about the occurrence and along with them went to the police station and lodged information by giving a fardbeyan wherein above details of the occurrence had been mentioned.

(3.) On the basis of the fardbeyan, a First Information report was lodged and the Police went to the spot on that very night and recovered the dead body of Babulal Mahto from the house of Jhari Mahto after, breaking the doors and arrested the accused-persons who were hiding on the roof of the house. Inquest was held over the dead body and the same was sent for autopsy by challan. The injured prosecution witnesses had also been sent to the doctor for examination of their injuries. From the place of occurrence, i.e., from inside the house of Jhari Mahto blood-stained Balua, lathi and blood-stained earth, etc. had been seized in presence of witnesses and then charge-sheet was submitted in the case against ten accused-persons including the accused appellant under Sections 148/147/302/307/323/149 of the IPC and on commitment charges were framed against all the ten accused-persons under Sections 148/302/149 of the IPC and under Section 307 and 323, IPC without any aid of Section 149 of the IPC Said charges were framed on 16-6-1990 and when the same was read over and explained to the accused-persons they pleaded not guilty. It may be mentioned here that in the incident Balram Mahto one of the accused had also been injured and he was also examined by the same doctor who had examined the injured prosecution witnesses. A cross-case was also lodged against the prosecution party and the same Investigating Officer had investigated the cross-case also and submitted charge-sheet against some of the prosecution parties.