THAKUR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are fourteen appellants in this appeal and in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1967 all these appellants have been convicted under different sections of the Indian Penal Code. Shankru Mahto. appellant No. 8 has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has been also convicted under Section 324. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has been further convicted under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been passed against him under this section. Appellants Nos. 1 and 10, viz.. Thakur Mahto and Mahadeo Mahto have been convicted under Section 326/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. THERE has been a further conviction against them under Section 148. Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been passed under this count. Appellants 2 to 6, 9, 11. 12 and 14 have also been convicted under Sections 326/149. 323/149 and 147. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under Section 326/149 but no separate sentences have been passed under Sections 323/149 and 147. Indian Penal Code. Appellants 7 and 13, viz., Charku Mahto and Meghu Mahto have been convicted under Sections 326/149, 323 and 147, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under Section 326/149. but no separate sentences have been passed under Sections 323 and 147. Indian Penal Code. The sentences passed against appellant Shankru Mahto have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution briefly stated is as follows : THE occurrence took place in the mornins at about 6 A. M. On 13-8-1966 in village Kanchanpur within Govindpur police station in the district of Dhanbad. THEre is a plot of land viz.. plot No. 1175 measuring 1.73 acres appertaining to khata No. 63 and situated in the aforesaid mauza. THEre was a proceeding in respect of this land under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prosecution party of this case had been declared to be in possession in respect of this land by order of the Magistrate dated 17-1-1966. Gulu Mahto (P. W. 11) along with his sons Ram Charan Mahto (P. W. 3), Girish Mahto (P. W. 5). Sheo Charan Mahto (P. W. 6). Teklal Mahto (P. W. 15) and grandson Nandlal Mahto (P. W. 4) and his nephews Doman Mahto (P. W. .1) and Hari Ram Mahto (P. W. 2). according to the prosecution, had gone to this aforesaid plot in the morning to plough the same. It is said that the accused persons, who are appellants in this appeal variously armed with tangilathi, bows and arrows and thus forming an unlawful assembly arrived at that place. Thakur Mahto, appellant No. 1 and Charku Mahto, appellant No. 7 enquired from the prosecution Party as to why they were ploughing this land and asked the prosecution party to remove the ploughs otherwise they would be killed. It is said that they also began to assault during the course of which Gulu (P. W. 11), Girish (P. W. 5) and Izarat the deceased sustained injuries. Shankru Mahto, appellant No. 8 who is said to have been armed with a tangi assaulted Izarat on the head and the latter died on the spot. Gulu and Girish were also rendered unconscious by the injuries. Doman Mahto (P. W. 1) after thus occurrence went to the police station and lodged a first information report which is Ext. 3 in this case. THE officer in charge of the police station Rudra Mohan Sinha, who is P. W. 16, after having recorded the first information report instituted a case and then he came to the place of occurrence. He left the police station at about 10 A. M. and reached the place of occurrence at about 12 noon. He found plot No. 1175 full of mud and water and the dead body of Izarat lying on the western Aal of the plot. He also found Gulu (P. W. 11) and Girish (P. W. 5) lavinp there in injured condition. THE police officer held inquest over the dead body of Izarat and then escorted by a constable, he sent the dead body for post mortem examination to Dhanbad. He also prepared the injury reports of Girish and Gulu and also seized articles found there such as blood-stained earth etc. and proceeded with the investigation. After the completion of the investigation he submitted charge-sheet in the case.

(3.) THE defence of all the appellants was that they were all innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case and as regards plot No. 1175 it was pleaded on their behalf that this plot was not in possession of the prosecution party but rather it had been and was in possession of the appellants at the time of the occurrence. It was urged that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. It also appears that alternatively the defence also pleaded that the prosecution has not given the correct place as the place of occurrence because the occurrence did not take place on plot No. 1175. but rather it took place on plot No. 1113 which is adjacent west of plot No. 1175. Plot No. 1113 belongs to the appellants and they had grown paddy seedlings on the same. According to the defence version Gulu Mahto (P. W. 11) Izarat (deceased). Girish (P. W. 5) and Doman (P. W. 1) had all come armed on the date of occurrence on plot No. 1113 and began to uproot the paddy seedling. Charku Mahto. appellant No. 7 protested and then according to the defence Izarat (deceased) struck Charku with a lathi on his right hand and Charku fell down. THEre was thus a plea of right of private defence also.