JATTA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant suffered conviction under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on that count on being tried by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1983.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass which can be narrated with brevity. It was alleged that while Uma Shankar Mahto, P.W. 7, was getting the wheat bundles wrapped in the field along with labourers who were working in the field, the appellant emerged and resisted him from harvesting the crops which was followed by assault with dagger on his face and chest and Uma Shankar Mahto, finding no prospect to escape, retired to his house. The incident was shown to have been witnessed by Shiv Kumar Gareri, Chhattu Gareri and Sangerwa, daughter of Shiv Kumar Gareri. It was alleged that shortly after receipt of injury by Uma Shankar Mahto, he was carried to Dumraon hospital where he was treated by the doctor who attended him. It was alleged that after the alleged occurrence took place at 6.20 p.m. on 7/04/1982, fardbeyan of Uma Shankar Mahto was recorded by Sri K. C. Singh, S.I. at State Dispensary, Dumraon at 22/30 hours on the same day. After the police case had been instituted, the investigation commenced, on conclusion of which the police laid charge-sheet in the Court and the appellant eventually being committed to the Court of Session, was put on trial.

(3.) In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses of which Ram Chandra Mahto, P.W. 1, Chhattu Gareri P.W. 2, Bhim Mahto P.W. 4 and Uma Shankar Mahto P.W. 7 are said to be ocular witnesses of the occurrence, Rajmuniya Devi, P.W. 3, happens to be the mother of the injured who too claims to have witnessed her son injured. The evidences placed on the record would suggest that firstly the injured was taken to Dumraon hospital and from there he was referred to Buxar hospital and from Buxar he was also brought to Patna for better treatment as his condition appeared to be critical. The trial Court after evaluating the evidences placed on the record rendered verdict of conviction and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above.