DEV RAJ MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arising out of the same judgment dated 25.11.1997 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 (P.W. 9), in short, is that on 17.7.1993, informant was in his shop where he came to know that wife of this 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 mother and be himself, alongwith his other family members, started marking search for his bro her 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 fiat foul smell and after removing earth and straw, he found a dead body which was of his brother Barshidhar. On hulla, villagers assembled there and started assaulting appellant Gomaru 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 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, 201/1206/34, Indian Penal Code was registered against both the appellants and Usha Devi, wife of appellant Somaru Mahto. THE police, after investigation, submitted charge-shegt 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 Sections 120B 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 that, co-accused Usha Devi was not found guilty and she was acquitted So far appellants are concerned, they were not found guilty under Section 1206, Indian Penal Code but were found so under Sections 302/201, Indian Penal Code and we reconvicted and sentenced, as indicated above.

(3.) THE entire case of prosecution is based on the evidence of Rajmunna Devi (P.W. 1), wife of deceased, informant Ramadhar Mahto (P.W. 9), Bachcha Singh (P.W. 10) and Investigating Officer Surendra Kumar (P.W. 12). None of them is an eye witness t the occurrence which has been admitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor also according to whom it is a case of strong circumstantial evidence.