RAMAUTAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 20.10.1981 at about midday Shila Kumari, a student of Class IV of Upper Primary School in Village Dhanua Police Station Sikandra, District Munger came out of her class room hearing some gun sound. Kaushalya Kumari, the informant (P.W.6), a student of class VIII of the Girl Middle school situated south of that Upper primary school also came out of her class room hearing the gun sound. She was told by Shila Kumari, her younger sister, that appellant Sadhu Mahto assaulted Bhaiyaji (brother-in-law). Both ran towards the upper primary school from where boys and girls were running out. They saw their brother-in-law Lab Yadav alias Binod Kumar (deceased) bleeding and running, and entering into the class room of III Standard where he fell down on the floor of the said room. Informants other brothers and sisters were also students of that upper primary school namely, Shila Kumari (P.W.2), Satyendra Prasad (P.W.3) and Aruna Devi (P.W.4) besides Shambhu Sharan and Anita Kumari. All the appellants also came there, Sadhu and Vijay had pistol and gun respectively and Ramautar had a leather bag containing cartridges. Appellant Triloki Mahto ordered to kill Lallo Yadav as he was still alive. Ramaular Mahto passed on the leather bag containing cartridges to Vijay Mahto and Sadhu Mahto and Vijay Mahto shot at Lab Yadav in the school room causing his death. Sadhu and Lab Yadav were Chachera and Mausra brothers also and they had some land dispute going on from before which was said to be the reason for his murder. Kaushabya Devi went to Sikandra Police Station with her mother Kabawati Devi (P.W.7) and the local Chaukidar and gave her fardbeyan on which the First Information Report was drawn up at 16 hours that day, the place of occurrence being 11 kms. away from the Police Station. The police registered the case and took up investigation in the case. The investigating officer (P.W.9) visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and submitted chargesheet against the appellants who were later tried by the 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 829 of 1982 and they were held guilty by his judgment dated 17th June, 1988.

(2.) Appellant Sadhu Mahto and Vijay Mahto in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 1988 were convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as the Code) and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted for the offence under section 148 of the Code but no separate sentence was awarded for the same. They were also tried for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment each. The appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1988 were held guilty for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the Code and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellant Ramaubar was further convicted under section 148 of the Code but no separate sentence was awarded for the same by the trying Judge. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellants of both the appeals have come up in these two appeals against the said judgment of the learned trial court

(3.) Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment