MISHRI LAI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINT Case No. 569C of 1966. out of which this criminal appeal has arisen on conclusion of trial by the trial Court, has a chequered history. The factual matrix are that on 26th October, 1977 when Phul Kumari Devi (PW 5) at the night came out of her house to take her son to ease, appellants holding arms entered into the inner apartment of the house and intercepted her. It was alleged that the appellants broke open the boxes and took out belongings kept therein. Allegations were attributed to Maukhi Lal that he dealt blows on the neck but the aim was lost and the allegation attributed to appellant Nathuni Mahto was about dealing lathi blows on her. It was alleged that when her daughter Krishna Devi (PW 4) came for her rescue, appellant Ram Dayal Mahto took out golden ring from her nose causing bleeding injuries, and allegations attributed to appellant Dasarath Mahto was that he assaulted Krishna Devi with lathi Omnibus allegations were attributed to all the appellants that while retreating from the place of occurrence, they also damaged crops in the field. Those who flocked to the place of occurrence were suggested to be Ram Lal and Bhikhari who too were subjected to assault by the appellants. Pursuant to filing of the petition of complaint, the Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikarahna, who was in seisin of the proceeding, directed an inquiry to be made by the Sarpanch of the Gram Kutcherry as enjoined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for submission of report. As the complainant alleged misconduct on part of the inquiring officer, a protest petition was filed which was dismissed by the Court. The inquiry report received from the Sarpanch, inter alia, suggested dismissal of the complaint petition. However, the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate finding report to be perfunctory, while rejecting the same, made over complaint case to Shri R.S. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for inquiry and disposal. The complaint case again received the same set back, as the learned Magistrate on conclusion of inquiry recommended for dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding no prima facie case, to put the appellants on trial. That was not the end of the story, as the complainant took recourse to revision before the Sessions Judge, on conclusion of hearing, directed further inquiry into the matter and it is how that cognizance was taken and the appellant were put on trial.

(2.) THE case was eventually committed to the Court of Sessions, the offence being exclusively triable by the said Court and the appellants were put on trial. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and the trial Court while rejecting contentions raised on behalf of the appellants about their false implication due to land dispute persisting between the parties, rendered verdict of guilt against the appellants under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 (One thousand), in default of which, to suffer imprisonment for six months with a direction that the sentences shall run consecutively. It was further directed in the impugned judgment that out of amount of fine so realised from the appellants, 50% of the money shall be paid to the victim complainant and her family as a compensation of loss suffered by them.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants would assail the findings recorded by the trial Court on premises that though the petition of complaint in the Court of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, was made as early as on 28th October, 1977 it was not before lapse of two days that statement of the complainant was shown to have been recorded on solemn affirmation by the Magistrate. Contentions were raised that though a quite number of persons were suggested to have flocked to the place of occurrence -during the commission of dacoity, the prosecution case would suffer set back for the simple reasons that none of them claimed to have witnessed the incident. The next limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants was that there was admitted hostility, persisting between the parties since long due to land dispute and in that backdrop false implication of the appellants could not be ruled out. Paucity of evidence on the record about mother and daughter sustaining injuries on their persons, in the backdrop of such assertions made by them, was also highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants as an infirmity in the prosecution case.