(1.) ALL the appellants aforesaid stand convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code ') and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE case of prosecution, as per informant Jai Kishun Mahto, in his fardbayan (Exhibit -1), is that in the night intervening between 29th and 30th of November, 1981 at about mid -night while he was sleeping, someone struck him on the head with a rod and he identified six persons out of them who were burning torches, namely, Sundar Mahto, Bindeshwar Mahto, Ram Ekbal Mahto, Ram Lagan Mahto, Ram Swarup and Nantun alias Nand Kishore Mahto. Nantun assaulted him with iron rod in his hand causing tearing injury in between his thumb and the finger. Nantun took away keys from his waist and opened his box and took away the goods. They also demanded watch from his son Dhaneshwar Mahto but since he had none, he was inflicted injury in the neck and thigh with a katta like weapon. Thereafter, they took away ornaments. After committing dacoity in his house they also committed dacoity in the houses of Mishri Lal Mahto, Ram Swarath Mahto, Ganga Ram Mahto, Sonfi Mahto and Ram Swarup Mahto. They had also fired three times causing injuries to Sonfi Mahto and Ganga Ram Mahto. The dacoits were twenty five to thirty in number and had committed dacoity from mid -night to 12.45 A.M. whereafter they fled away. As per the informant the wives of Sonfi Mahto and Ganga Ram Mahto had also identified those six persons, as named in the first information report. As claimed, the informant had no previous enmity with any of the dacoits.
(3.) THE defence, in course of trial, is their false implication out of enmity. Defence witnesses have been produced to prove the case of the defence that there had been difference between the informant and Ganga Ram Mahto, on one hand, and appellant Ram Sarup Mahto (Swarup Mahto), on the other, relating to a land which Ram Swarup Mahto had purchased from one Abhiram Singh. As per defence witness, Ganga Ram and others had constructed house on that land for which a Panchayati was also held but the differences had continued.