DAMODAR MAHTO Vs. RAMDEO MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal appeal in this batch of three cases is filed by a single appellant Damodar Mahto. He stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Penal Code. Facing trial with him there were seven other accused persons. He alone was charged under section 302 while the rest of the accused were charged under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. At the end of the trial the court below held that against Damodar Mahto the charge of committing murder was fully established but the prosecution had not been able to prove that it was not his individual act but the commission of murder was part of the shared common object of the unlawful assembly comprising the other accused persons. The other seven accused were accordingly acquitted of the charge. Against that part of the judgment the State preferred Government appeal, the other case in this batch which on admission was directed to be heard along with the criminal appeal. The informant then filed the criminal revision which too was admitted to be heard along with the other two cases. During the pendency of the cases, two of the seven accused against whom the Government appeal was filed, namely, Ramdeo Mahto (respondent no. 1) and Shyam Narain Prasad (respondent no. 7) were reported to be dead. The Government appeal, therefore, abated against them as recorded in the order, dated 14.7.2004 passed in that case.

(2.) All the three cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The appellant and the rest of the accused on the one hand and the deceased and the members of the prosecution party on the other have a common ancestor and a dispute over the daughters' share in the family property lies at the root of the occurrence. It will be, therefore, convenient to take a look, at the out-set, at the geneology of the accused and the prosecution party. One Mangru Mahto had four sons, (i) Chhotu, (ii) Tunnu, (iii) Govind and (iv) Dahu. Tunnu died unmarried. Chhotu had three daughters, namely, (i) Dhaneshwari, (ii) Sukhiya and (iii) Sandbarti. Sukhiya's husband Damodar Mahto is the appellant in the criminal appeal. Dhaneshwari's husband Shyam Narain was one of the accused who is now dead. Bindeshwar, the son of Damodar Mahto and Sukhiya and Ashwini, the son of Sandbarti are the other two accused. Ganauri Prasad, Arjun Prasad and Ramjee Prasad, the remaining three accused do not belong to the family. They are co-villagers who had purchased part of the disputed property from the family members of the accused. Sadhu Sharan, another son of Damodar and Sukhiya though named as an accused in the F.I.R. was not before the trial court. It is, thus, clear that the accused are in the line of Chhotu.