PARMESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 19th August 1994, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 853 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant Parmeshwar Mahto was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case lies in narrow compass and can be recapitulated. On 27.4.1988 at 11.30 a.m. the informant and her husband Madhu Mahto (deceased) were sleeping in the room of their house and were gossiping when the appellant knocked the door which was locked from inside and after breaking the door entered in the room and wanted to kill the deceased who ran out of the room to save himself but with the aid of the leg the appellant got him dropped on the ground and made indiscriminate assault upon the deceased with Kakut as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The informant, her mother -in - law and the witnesses tried their best to persuade the appellant for not killing the deceased but all the request made by them went in vain. The motive behind the occurrence is that the mother -in -law of the informant was living with the deceased who was married with the informant in the same year and the appellant was at unhappy with the marriage and was apprehensive that the lands which were in the name of the mother of the deceased may be taken by the deceased. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on the same day at about 5.00 p.m. on the basis of which the FIR (Ext. 4) was lodged at 9.00 p.m. against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police submitted charge -sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and after commitment the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who framed charge against the appelfant under Section 302 of the IPC which was denied by the appellant. The defence is of innocence simpliciter.

(3.) IN order to prove the charge the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses out of whom PW 4 Rohan Mahto is a witness on the inquest report and has proved his signature (Ext. 1) on the inquest report. He is also a witness on the seizure list which was prepared in proof of the seizure of the blood stained earth from the PO and he has testified his signature Ext 1/1 on the seizure list. Although this witness has not stated a word on the point of the alleged occurrence but in cross -examination he admitted that the appellant is his brother -in -law and his father - in -law had made partition of the lands between his two sons and after that the appellant started living separately. He further stated that the deceased sold his land and was living with his mother and the first wife of the deceased deserted him. Thereafter, he married second time. After the murder of the deceased his mother started living with this witness and she gave her lands to her grand son i.e. the son of this witness.