RAGHO MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eight accused persons were charged together for committing the murder of Hare Krishna Singh in furtherance of their common intention. Besides, the two appellants before us, Ragho Mahton, Chulhan Mahton alias Mahendra Prasad and acquitted Bijendra Mahton were charged separately together under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The appellants as also acquitted accused Subhash Mahton, Jhulli Mahton, and Kishore Mahton were charged but separately together for committing offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial was held in Sessions Trial no. 38 of 1984 by the judgment dated 10th May, 1988 . Six accused persons were acquitted but two appellants before us, Ragho Mahton and Chulhan Mahton alias Mahendra Mahton were found guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and were accordingly directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No sentence was passed against the appellants for their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The present appeal brings into question the judgment of conviction aforesaid.

(2.) P.W.3, Ram Keshwar Mahto, came to the Police Station, Hilsa, and lodged a report alleging that in the night intervening 13th and 14th February, 1983 he along with the deceased Hare Krishna Singh, who was his sisters son, was sleeping along with Surendar Kumar, P.W.2, and villagers of the deceased, namely, Vijoy Kumar, P.W.5, Krishna Prasad Sinha, P.W.4, in the Jhopri (hut) which was situated at the tube well of the deceased which was to run by an electric motor. At about 12.00 P.M. the accused persons, who were put on trial, came there armed with guns and rifles and surrounded the hut. The informant stated that all the occupants of the hut were awake. Appellant Chulhan Mahto alias Mahendra Mahto stated that deceased was posing himself to be the leader of the labourers and as such he be killed. All the accused persons, as such entered into the hut and the first shot was fired by appellant Chulhan Mahto alias Mahendra Mahto which hit the deceased Hare Krishna Singh on his temporal region. Accused Ragho Mahto also fired a shot into the head of the deceased and accused and accused Bijendra Mahto fired a shot into the right hand of the deceased. The other accused persons, during the course of the occurrence, were catching hold of the deceased by his hands and accused Subhash Mahto was sitting on his chest. The informant stated that he and others were also assaulted by the accused persons with the butt of their respective guns or rifles and commanded the informant not to divulge the story to any one else he will also be killed. Informant claimed identifying the accused persons and seeing the occurrence in the lantern which was allegedly burning there inside the Jhopri (hut) and further in the light of the torches flashed by the accused persons. The informant stated that after having accomplished their goal the accused persons went into the eastern direction whereafter Kesho Mahto, not examined, Kameshwar Prasad, not examined, and others came and they were also told about the occurrence by P.W.3. The first information report was drawn up by P.W.6 and he recorded the statement of other persons who had accompanied the informant up to the Police Station and issued the injury certificate in respect of the injuries found on the person of the informant and Bijoy Kumar and Suraj. Thereafter he sent injured persons for medical examination to the hospital and himself proceeded to the place of occurrence which was found to be a Jhopri (hut) which was belonged to the informant and which was found open. He found the dead body lying inside the Jhopri (hut) and held the inquest and prepared the inquest report. There was a well situated outside the Jhopri (hut). P.W.6 found blood fallen inside the Jhopri and, accordingly, he seized the blood and prepared the seizure memo. After examining some of the witnesses he submitted final report for the prosecution of the accused persons.

(3.) The defence of the appellants was that no one had seen or identified any of the accused persons and the witnesses were speaking out of their imagination and further that the appellants had falsely been implicated.