BASUDEO MAHTO, Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Basudeo Mahto, Raghunath Mahto, Biranchi Mahto and Debilal Mahto, who are brothers being sons of Sudan Mahto residents of village Balaunja Tola, Police Station Chas, district Dhanbad against the judgment and order of Sessions Judge convicting appellant no. 1 for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Code') and imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life under the said Sec. for the murder of Lakhi Ram Mahto, and convicting appellant nos. 2 to 4 for the offence under Sec. 323 of the Code and imposing a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment on each of them for causing hurt. Appellant no. 2 was so convicted for causing hurt to Aghnu Mahto (P.W. 9) whereas appellants 3 and 4 for causing hurt to Jainath Mahto (P.W. 2). The prosecution case, in brief is that on 11.8.66, at about 7 a.m., Upasi Mahatani (P.W. 5) had gone to uproot paddy seedlings in the field known as Bara Khet and she was followed by her brothers Jainath Mahto (P.W. 2) and Padum Mahto (P.W. 10) and their father Lakhi Mahton (deceased). Later Aghnu Mahto (P.W. 9) went to the field with Raksha (plank for harrowing) and sikal (chain). Then they noticed that the western sub -plot of their field bearing Plot No. 1370 (which they described as niche wala khet) was being ploughed by the appellants. Appellants 1, 2 and 3 each were holding a tangi in their hands, whereas appellant no. 4 was holding a lathi. Then P.W. 9 went to the appellants and enquired as to why they were ploughing his land. At this appellant no. 2 assaulted P.W. 9 with the back portion of the Tangi. Lakhi Ram (Mahto) also went there, and he was assaulted by appellant no. 1 with a Tangi on the neck. He fell down and died then and there. Jainath Mahto (P.W. 2) also went there and he was assaulted by appellant no. 3 with the handle portion of the tangi and by appellant no. 4 with lathi. After assaulting these persons the appellants fled away with their ploughs and bullocks. P.W. 5 subsequently went to her mother Bhusani Mahatani (P.W. 1), wife of the deceased, and informed her about the occurrence. After receiving the information P.W. 1 also went to the place of occurrence. They made an attempt to contact the Mukhia of the village, but he could not be found there. Information was also given to the Sarpanch but he did not pay heed. However, Subedar Dhoba (P.W. 8), the Choukidar, reached there. The dead body of Lakhi Ram was placed on a bullock -cart of one Shyama Charan Tiwary and along with the Choukidar, Aghnu (P.W. 9), Padum (P.W. 10) and Jainath (P.W. 2) went to Police Station Chas at about 3 P.M. where P.W. 2 lodged first information report (Ext. 2) which was recorded by Ram Janam Singh (P.W. 18) who having held the inquest over the dead body of Lakhi Ram, prepared the inquest report (Ext. 3) and sent the dead body along with the Choukidar (P.W. 8) and Constable Ramdhyan Singh (P.W. 3) to the hospital at Dhanbad for post -mortem examination. He also found injuries on P.Ws. 2 and 9. Therefore, he sent them to Chas Hospital for treatment. Later, on the same date, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence. When he reached the neighbouring village at 7 -30 P.M. he had to stop there as it started raining heavily. After the rain abated a little, he started for the place of occurrence and reached there at 8.30 P.M. He examined the prosecution witnesses. On 12.8.65 he arrested appellant no. 1, seized the ganji, which he was wearing, and which according to him, contained blood -like stains, in presence of witnesses and prepared a seizure list (Ext. 4/1). On completing the investigation, he submitted charge sheet on 23.3.67. After the usual enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions, where as many as 19 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to support its story. Although, the appellants have not examined any witness in defence, from the answer of their examination under Sec. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and from the suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, it seems, the appellants challenged the place, genesis and the manner of the occurrence. They further claimed title and possession over the field bearing plot no. 1370. Appellant no. 1 also denied the seizure of his ganji by the Sub -Inspector (P.W. 18). However, considering the evidence on the record, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

(2.) Mr. J.N.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, reiterating the defence which was advanced before the Sessions judge, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According to him, the prosecution failed to establish the time, place and the manner of occurrence. However, he did not challenge the factum of the murder of Lakhi Ram Mahto or the injuries which P.Ws. 2 and 9 received. Therefore, I will not pause to consider the factum of the murder of Lakhi Ram Mahto and the injuries which P.Ws. 2 and 9 received, which fact stands amply corroborated from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 18) and that of Dr. Bhrigunath Singh (P.W. 17) who held the post -mortem examination over the body of Lakhi Ram Mahto and that of Dr. R.N. Sharma (P.W. 13) who examined the injuries of P.Ws. 2 and 9.

(3.) Therefore, the only point which falls for consideration is whether the appellants are responsible for committing the murder or for causing injuries on P.Ws. 2 and 9 at the place, time and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In order to consider these, it will be necessary to examine minutely the evidence of the eye witnesses.