RAM PATI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABOVE noted three appeals have been preferred by all the appellants named above against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.8.1991 and 8.8.1991 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 1981 whereby and whereunder appellant Baleshwar Mahto has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant Baleshwar Mahto, Ram Bhajan Mahto, Kapil Mahto, Arjun Mahto, Ram Pati Mahto, Surendra Mahto, Suresh Mahto, Garbhu Mahto, Brahmdev Mahto, Parma Mahto, Lakhan Mahto, Bishundeo Mahto (since deceased) and Rohan Mahto were further found guilty for committing the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Kishun Mahto, Ram Bhajan Mahto, Kapil Mahto, Arjun Mahto, Ram Pati Mahto, Surendra Mahto, Suresh Mahto, Garbhu Mahto, Brahmdev Mahto, Parma Mahto, Lakhan Mahto and Bishundeo Mahto (since deceased) were further found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. No separate sentence has been passed against them.

(2.) IN Cr. Appeal No. 310 of 1991(DB) there were 12 appellants and due to death of appellant No. 9 Bishundeo Mahto, his appeal stands abated vide order dated 27.2.2003. In Cr. Appeal No. 316 of 1991 the sole appellant is Rambhajan Mahto whereas in Cr. Appeal No. 328 of 1991 the sole appellant is Baleshwar Mahto. As these three appeals have arisen out of one judgment of conviction and order of sentence and as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) DURING trial the prosecution examined six witnesses who are Ram Swarath Singh (PW 1) an Advocate Clerk who has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 1), Anirudh Prasad Sinha (PW 2) the Police Inspector who has recorded the fard -beyan of the informant. He has prepared requisition for injury report. He has proved the fard -beyan (Ext. 2) and his signature on formal FIR (Ext. 2/1). He examined the informant again, went at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of PW 4 Man Lagan Singh. Inquest was also prepared. He has proved the inquest report (Ext. 3) which was prepared by the Police Inspector Arbind Kumar Singh. He inspected the place of occurrence in torch light which is situated 400 yards away from the house of the informant having khata no. 85, plot no. 15. He found some portion of the field ploughed and also found burnt tractor there which was seized in presence of witnesses Yogendra Singh and Rameshwar Singh (both not examined). He has given full description of the place of occurrence. He has also seized blood stained soil in presence of Nagendra Singh and Rameshwar Singh (both not examined). He has proved both seizure lists (Ext. 4 and 4/1). He further examined Baleshwar Singh Mukhiya (PW 6) and Munnilal (not examined). He received the post mortem report. He also took the photographs of burnt tractor. He has proved the three photographs (Ext. 5, 5/1 and 5/2). He obtained the injury report. He also examined tractor driver Ramji Pandey (not examined) and after completing investigation submitted chargesheet after showing appellant Baleshwar Mahto absconder. He has been cross -examined wherein, in paragraph 10, he states that he came to know that the disputed plot was used for storing water for irrigation. He further states that from outside the criminals were gathered to take possession of the disputed land. He also admits that Dewnath Singh the father of the informant was a criminal. He further admits that the deceased Rajdeo Singh was Brahil or not it was suspicious. PW 3 is Ganga Singh. He has stated that he was coming from Telhara market and as soon as he reached near Lachhi Bagicha saw tractor being ploughed in the field of Bhola Singh which was being driven by the driver and Bhola Singh was also sitting on the tractor. Deonath Singh and Brahil Rajdeo Singh were also present there. The accused persons were also there. He states that Rohan was having Bhala and rests were having Gun and besides them there were 8 more persons also. He states that on being directed by Bishun Mahto, Baleshwar Mahto fired which hit to the head of Brahil Rajdeo Singh and again Ram Bhajan Mahto fired which hit left thigh of Bhola Singh and then this witness and Man Lagan Singh brought Bhola Singh at his door. Thereafter, he went to his house. He has identified the accused persons in the court and claimed to identify rests also who were represented through Advocate. During cross -examination it has come that several litigations were going on between the parties besides the litigation for the disputed plot. In paragraph 19, this witness is concealing relationship. In paragraph 19 he states that Kishun Mahto was claiming the disputed land. Bhola Singh received injury when he was on tractor, then he came down from the tractor and went towards West and then towards South and fell down. He states that Deonath Singh was also coming behind Bhola Singh. Suggestion has been given to this witness that he is the cousin of the informant and is telling a lie to which he denies.