SURENDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the sole appellant is directed against the judgment dated 4.5.1993 and order of sentence dated 5.5.1993 passed by Sri Moti Lal Hasdah, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1992 arising out of Nautan P.S. Case No. 63 of 1991 whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence u/s. 396 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years.

(2.) One Raj Bahadur Rao set the proceeding in motion by giving his fardbeyan at about 9 P.M. on 1.7.1991 in respect of an occurrence which took place earlier that day. According to the informant he had gone to the house of his nephew Jai Narain Rao and in the evening he was sitting with him and some other persons, namely, Brijesh Mahto, Manager Mahto and Bikrama Mahto in front of the house. At around 8 P.M. one Brahmdeo Yadav came to take food for the Baba of Bairagi Math and as he entered into the Angan some 10-12 persons flashing torches came running from the road and four of them surrounded them and pointing their guns at them threatened them not to move. It is said that one of them asked about the whereabouts of the gun as some of the miscreants entered into the house. It is said that Jai Narain gave out that the gun was in the name of his brother and was with him at Ranchi and even volunteered that the house was open and they were free to search for the gun and take away any article they felt like taking. After some time one of the miscreants from inside shouted that the gun was not to be found whereupon one of the dacoits surrounding the informant asked those dacoits inside to come out. It is alleged that as the dacoits were departing accused Surendra Mahto pointed at Jai Narain and on his instance accused Kamal Yadav turned round and fired at Jai Narain Rao who sustained injuries on his chest and died instantaneously and the dacoits went away. The informant claims to have identified 9 of the accused and also stated that the persons who were present there had identified some others. According to the informant there was land dispute between Dharichan Mahto and Brijesh Mahto and out of that very land Brijesh Mahto and others had sold 10 Kathas of land to Jai Narain Rao and it was agreed that the cases in Court would be looked after by Jai Narain Rao. It is said that it was Dharichan Mahto who had masterminded the crime. However, the informant has not named Dharichan Mahto as one of the participants in the crime.

(3.) On the basis of the fardbeyan of Raj Bahadur Rao Nautan P.S. Case No. 63 of 1991 was registered u/s. 396 of the Indian Penal Code against 9 persons named in the F.I.R. and after due investigation a chargesheet under Ss. 396 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the aforesaid 9 persons wherein except the sole appellant all the other 8 F.I.R. named accused were shown as absconders.