RAVINDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge. Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 360 of 1996. The appellant Nos. 2 & 3 were convicted under Sections 323 & 341 of the IPC. They were however released on admonition for keeping peace and to be of good behavior. So far appellant Nos. 1 & 4 are concerned, they were convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for seven years each. They were further convicted under Sections 323 & 341, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and 15 days respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as reported through the written report (Ext 1) was that on 15th November 1995, the informant Ramdeo Sharma was at his house and he learnt that Jugal Mahto was getting his palm tree peeled off in order to extract palm juice. The informant went there and protested. Then Ravindra Mahto (appellant No. 1), Aklu Choudhary (appellant No. 2), Jugal Mahto (appellant No. 3) and Suresh Choudhary (appellant No. 4) all fisted, slapped and kicked the informant. The informant was also assaulted with lathi as a result of which, the informant sustained injury as on his mouth, elbow etc. Subsequently, Ravindra Mahto (appellant No. 1) and Suresh Choudhary (appellant No. 4) used Darmas in order to throttle the informant to death. On alarm raised by the informant, Krishna Murari Thakur, Ganesh Sharma and Md. Aslam Ansari came and intervened and saved the informant. The appellants were charged under Section 307/34 of the IPC and under Section 323 & 341 of the IPC. They have taken a plea of false implication.

(3.) The prosecution examined, in all, ten witnesses PW 1Md. Aslam who was named in the written report, was declared hostile. PW 2 Ram Kishun Choudhary was not named in the FIR and he came to support the prosecution case and the alleged occurrence. PW 3 Gauri Shankar Choudhary was also not named in the written report and he also was examined to support the alleged report and he also was examined to support the alleged occurrence. PW 4 is Ganesh Sharma. This witness admitted at Paragraph 2 of his cross- examination that he is Bhagina of the informant. PW 5 Shyam Sunder Choudhary was a hear-say witness he had found the informant lying injured at the PO PW 6 Ramdeo Sharma was the informant himself. PW 7 was the Doctor. PW 8 was a formal witness who brought on the record the formal FIR (Ext 3) PW 9 has been declared hostile. PW 10 is the IO. Thus, on the record, there were PWs 2, 3, 4, & 6 to support the prosecution case, so far the occurrence is concerned. Admittedly, PW 4 was Bhagina of the informant. PW 6 was the informant who supported his dase. So far PW 2 and 3 are concerned, it has been submitted that in their cross-examination these PWs admitted that when they reached the place of occurrence, the informant was lying unconscious. So even if the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 is ignored, PWs 6 & 4 of course, are interrelated, and support the prosecution case. The Doctor supports the injuries on the person of the informant and I shall discuss the nature of injuries later. The accused persons also examined the three witnesses to deny the alleged occurrence and the enmity. The circumstances of enmity between the parties can be good ground for the alleged occurrence. So the evidence of PWs 6 & 4 though they are interrelated, cannot be disbelieved simply because there is no other witness to support the alleged occurrence, right from the beginning to the end. The evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 will at least lend corroborative evidence to the extent that the informant was lying injured at the place of occurrence. So the entire occurrence, as alleged by the informant, cannot be discarded, as the trial Court has held on the basis of the evidence on the; record.