STATE OF BIHAR Vs. LALA MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 374, Criminal P. C. for the' confirmation of sentence of death on Lala Mahto, who has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. for having committed, the murder of his nephew Dhandabar Mahto. The condemned prisoner was tried along with his father Keshata Mahto and his brother Chutu Mahto. They have also been convicted under Section 302/34, I. P. C. on the same charge on which Lala Mahto was tried and have been sentenced to transportation for life. The last two accused have furlher been convicted under Section 324, I. P. C. for having assaulted one Nitai Mahto (P. W. 7) and have been sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. THIS reference has been heard along with the appeals filed by all the three accused.

(2.) THE occurrence resulting in the death of Dhandabar and the assault on Nitai Mahto arose out of a dispute for a piece of land known as Pain or Bulan. It lies in village Muru within the jurisdiction of police station Chandil in the district of Manbhum by the side of a river known as Sankhai. It appears to be a low land where the water of the field generally accumulates. On the east of this is admittedly the field of the deceased which is known as Hir Khet. On the south of it, as it appears from the sketch map prepared by the police, is a field belonging to the appellants. Just adjacent to it on the west is a parti high land. Further west to the high land on the north-western side is some other low land which is claimed by the accused as their field having at the relevant time some kodo crops standing on it. It is admitted that at a short distance from that field on a still north-western side is a house on a high land belonging to the appellants.

(3.) THE defence did not file any written statement but from what it suggested in cross- examination to the prosecution witnesses and also from the statements of Keshab and Chutu made by them in their examination under Section 342 Criminal P. C. appears that their case was that the land known as Pain or Bulan belonged to them and it was a part of their low and situated in the north-western direction from it and also that the dispute in fact start- ed in the low and having kodo crop therein at that time which admitedly belonged to the abused. According to the defence it was the prosecution party which was the aggressor and it was that party that had gone there to forcibly reap their kodo crop and to plough their field. This led to the dispute and it was for that reason that the injured Nitai (P. W. 7) was seen lying near about that land. In my opinion, there is no substance in this allegation. THE defence did not examine any witness in support of its claim of possession over the land in dispute nor did it file any document of a reliable character which could establish its case. On the other hand, theprosecution did examine a number of witnesses and they, as already stated above, have been found to be reliable. I, therefore, think that the case of possession set up by the accused is not at all true. THE land in dispute is conclusively proved to be in the possession of the prosecution party. As for the place of occurrence also, there is no iota of evidence that the dispute started on the low land lying on the north-western side of the land in dispute. Mr. Mazumdar in support of this part of the defence case laid reliance on a portion of the evidence of the Sub-Inspector. That reads: "It is not (sic) down in my diary in the statements of any of the witnesses if and where Nitai was said to have fallen." THEn the Sub-Inspector in his evidence further said; "It is (sic) down in the statement of Madhu-sudan Aditya Baboo that Nitai was lying a little away from Dhandabar. I inspected that place. I found no blnod there. THE ground was very hard and there had been a rain in the previous night. I found no ridge on the spot between A and B of my map. THEre was no ridge between A and C either. THEre was no ridge on the western side of the Bulan. THE land adjacent west to what I have shown as Bulan in the map by A is almost in the same level without there being any ridge or demarcation line to show the western limit of the Bulan, though one was slightly different from the other in feature." THEse statements no doubt prove that the injured body of Nitai was found near the other field away from the place where Dhandabar was lying. But, in my opinion, this small circumstance alone cannot be a ground for accepting that the dispute started in the kodo field in the neighbourhood of which Nitai was "found lying injured. According to the prosecution Nitai had tried to run away in the course of assault from the place of occurrence and hence it was quite natural that he on his fall must have been seen lying at some place away from the place of occurrence. THE other contention of Mr. Mazumdar was that the fact that there was no ridge seen by the Sub-Inspector between the land known as Pain or Bulan and the other low land lying on the north-western side of it supports the case that Bulan was a part of the other land. This contention also, I think, is without substance. THEre may be many reasons for the absence of ridge between them. Mere continuation of one land into another without any ridge between them is no evidence of oneness in title or possession, especially in a place where soil is not all along productive as in the case of lands Where occurrence took place. THE presence of blood and other circumstances found by the Sub-Inspector on the land in dispute and also the evidence of the witnesses prove beyond reasonable doubt that the occurrence took place on the land in dispute and not on any other land. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.