BALESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Khelawan Yadav who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as well as 27 of the Arms Act and has been directed to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while no separate sentence was passed under Section 27 of the Arms Act, appellant Baleshar Mahto who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under both counts respectively with a direction to run the sentences concurrently have filed two independent appeals which accordingly being heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

(2.) ANANDI Prasad, PW-7 had given his fardbeyan (Ext.9) at Bind Police Station along with his father Lala Mahto and brother Bindeshwar Prasad in injured condition alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 06:00 AM while he had gone to his field lying at Milki Khandha to sow paddy seed along with his father and brothers. During midst of ploughing the field, Khelawan Yadav armed with rifle, Dulli Mahto armed with Lathi, Rajendra Mahto armed with gun, Arun Yadav armed with gun, Umesh Prasad armed with Garasa, Subhash Prasad armed with Bhala, Baleshwar Mahto, Siwan Mahto armed with gun, Ram Bilas Yadav armed with Garasa, Surendra Yadav armed with gun, Ram Lagan Prasad armed with gun came. Khelawan Mahto said that why his filed is being ploughed which was retaliated by him (informant) claiming that the land belongs to him (informant). On this Dulli Mahto ordered to kill. Khelawan yadav shot at his father from his rifle causing injury over head of his father on account of which skull became fractured and he fell down in the field itself. Baleshwar Mahto fired from his gun causing injury at upper portion of his back (Pakhura) as well as over head. Ram Bilas Yadav assaulted with Garasa over his head. Umesh Yadav assaulted with Garasa over head of his brother Bindeshwari Yadav. Dulli Mahto assaulted him with lathi. Thereafter, all the accused persons began to fire indiscriminately to terrorize the persons. He named Brahamdeo Sao, Kameshwar Prasad, Ramu Sao as witness who saw the occurrence.

(3.) THE defence case as is evident from the mode of cross- examination as well as from the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is total denial of the occurrence. They have also pleaded that on account of long standing land dispute they have been falsely implicated in this case. Moreover, the defence had also suggested that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, the prosecution party assaulted them for which Asthawa P.S. Case No. 117 of 1982 was registered. To support the same, the injury report along with FIR of counter case had also been exhibited.