MAHABIR TADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants suffered conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on being tried by the Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 135 of 1990 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) Shorn of details, the prosecution case for which the State went for trial was that in the night of 23rd July, 1989 while Moti Yadav (deceased) was sleeping with his son Basudeo Yadav (PW 4) on a wooden cot at the door of his house, Devli Devi (PW 5) the wife of the deceased noticed the appellants coming out from their houses, and suspecting their nefarious design, she followed them. It was alleged that Ishwar Yadav, the appellant, pierced bhala blows on the abdomen of Moti Yadav when intestine came out of the abdomen and thereafter she raised alarm. The assault made by Ishwar Yadav was followed by assault by appellant Mahabir Yadav who dealt successive blows with bhala on the person of Moti Yadav. After trampling for some distance, the deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Further allegations, attributed to the appellants, by Devli Devi in her fardbeyan which she rendered before the Police, were that when Sugia Devi, mother of the deceased, came for rescue of her son, she too was assaulted with wooden substance of the bhala and thereafter, a box containing cash and ornaments was also removed from the house by the appellants and with these narrations, fardbeyan of Devli Devi was recorded which formed basis of the first information report and investigation commenced.

(3.) During investigation, Police recorded statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prepared inquest report over the dead body of Moti Yadav, visited place of occurrence, sent the dead body to mortuary for postmortem examination and on its receipt, having concluded investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court and the appellants, on being committed to the Court of Sessions, were put on trial. In the eventual trial, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses including wife and son of the deceased and also those who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the incident. Prosecution also examined one Dinesh Jha (PW 6), and Jagdish Pathak (PW 7) and since their evidence were formal in nature, there was nothing material in their evidence to merit consideration. The defence too examined two witnesses, namely, Mahabir Ram (DW 1) and Tulsi Das (DW 2). Defence of the appellant at trial and also before this Court had been of total denial of their participation in the assault and death of the deceased was attributed to criminals hired by Nunulal Yadav (PW 1), who had questionable relation with the wife of the deceased. The death of the deceased was also attributed to be a fall out of the land dispute and also for allocation of shares in the property among the family members of the deceased, and the trial Court on appreciation of evidences placed on record, while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, rendered verdict of guilt against them and sentenced them in the manner stated above.