DEV RAJ MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arising out of the same judgment dated 25.11.1987 and order dated 26.11.1997, against which they have been preferred, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each to the wife of deceased and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each to the wife of deceased and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days under Section 201, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of prosecution, as disclosed in the first information report (Exhibit-4) of informant Ramadhar Mahto (PW 9), in short, is that on 17.7.1993, informant was in his shop where he came to know that wife of his brother Banshidhar was weeping. Informant then went to the house of his brother Banshidhar and enquired from his wife why she was weeping on which she told him that on the night of previous day at about 8.30 p.m. when her husband was taking meal, appellant Somaru Mahto alongwith one man came to her house and asked her husband to go to the dalan of Amardayal Mahto for sleeping and further told him that Amardayal was calling him. On this, she told appellant Somaru Mahto that because it was raining at that time, therefore, her husband would sleep in her own house but appellant Somaru Mahto and his companion started repeatedly asking her husband for going to the dalan of Amardayal Mahto for sleeping. On being asked, Somaru Mahto disclosed the identity of his companion as appellant Dev Raj Mahto. Banshidhar Mahto took his bed and left his house alongwith both the appellants. On the next day in the morning when he did not return to his house, his wife started weeping. The informant pacified the wife of his brother and he himself, alongwith his other family members, started making search for his brother and on 18.7.1993 at about 4 p.m., he heard hulla that a dead body was found buried near heap of bundles of paddy crop in front of the dalan of appellant Somaru Mahto. When the informant went there, he felt foul smell and after removing earth and straw, he found a dead body which was of his brother Banshidhar. On hulla, villagers assembled there and started assaulting appellant Somaru Mahto and informant then himself ran to Police Station and lodged the first information report (Exhibit-4). The first information report (Exhibit-4) of informant was lodged on 18.7.1993 at about 5 p.m. in which after narrating the aforesaid fact, he stated that he was of the firm belief that both the appellants, conniving with wife of appellant Somaru Mahto and their other companions, committed the murder of his brother and concealed the dead body in front of dalan. About the motive of occurrence, he stated that since last few days, there was rumour in village that the deceased was entangled with the wife of appellant Somaru Mahto. He further stated that dalan of Amardayal Mahto is near the place of occurrence where his deceased brother used to sleep everyday. On the basis of first information report (Exhibit-4) of informant, a case under Sections 302, 201 and 120- B/34, Indian Penal Code was registered against both the appellants and Usha Devi, wife of appellant Somaru Mahto. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants and co-accused Usha Devi, and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session where charges under Section 120-B and 201, Indian Penal Code against both the appellants and co-accused Usha Devi and additional charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code against both the appellants were framed. The appellants denied the charges. During trial, no witness was examined on behalf of prosecution but from the trend of cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, their case appears to be of their complete innocence and their false implication in this case. After trial, co-accused Usha Devi was not found guilty and she was acquitted. So far appellants are concerned, they were not found guilty under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code but were found so under Sections 302/201, Indian Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced, as indicated above.

(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses. Ramadhar Mahto (PW 9) is the informant. Dr. Purushottam Singh (PW 11) is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased. Surendra Kumar (PW 12) is the Investigating Officer of this case. Rajmunna Devi (PW 1) is the wife of deceased. Yamuna Pandey (PW 2) has denied knowing anything about the occurrence although he has proved his signatures (Exhibits-1 and 1 /1 on inquest report and seizure list but at the same time has said that neither the dead body was recovered nor anything was seized by police in his presence. He has been declared hostile. Mukhraj Dusadh (PW 3), Sardar Ram (PW 5), Yogndra Singh (PW 6) and Lakha Muni Kumari (PW 8) have also been declared hostile because they have said that they had not seen the occurrence. Prahlad Mahto (PW 4) and Tulsi Mahto (PW 7) are tendered witnesses.