YOGENDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial no. 158 of 1986/62 of 2002 arising out of Purnhiya P.S. Case No. 25 of 1985, whereby the learned lower court convicted the accused persons namely, Yogendra Mahto, Harendra Mahto, Rajendra Mahto, Jagan Mahto, Nagendra Mahto, Kishori Mahto, Lagan Mahto and Ram Ashish Mahto for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and further convicted the accused Ram Ashish Mahto for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and further convicted the other seven accused persons namely, Yogendra Mahto, Harendra Mahto, Rajendra Mahto, Jagan Mahto, Nagendra Mahto, Kishori Mahto and Lagan Mahto for the offence under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused Ram Ashish Mahto to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also slapped him with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 6 months under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced other seven accused persons namely, Yogendra Mahto, Harendra Mahto, Rajendra Mahto, Jagan Mahto, Nagendra Mahto, Kishori Mahto and Lagan Mahto to undergo R.I. for 10 years each under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and also slapped them with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 6 months each. All the eight accused persons were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months, for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. each, 3 months R.I. for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. each and 3 months R.I. for the offence under Section 448 of the I.P.C. each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that Purnhiya P.S. Case No. 25 of 1985 was instituted under Sections 147, 323, 448 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Jagan Mahto, Lagan Mahto, Nagendra Mahto S/o Ganesh Mahto, Gopali Mahto, Yogendra Mahto, Nagendra Mahto S/o Gopali Mahto, Harendra Mahto, Ram Ashish Mahto and Kishori Mahto on the basis of fardbeyan of Sukani Devi W/o Dhanu Mahto R/o Village-Kohaua Thikaha P.S. Purnhiya District-Sitamarhi recorded by S.I. S.N. Tiwari of P.S. Sitamarhi on 23.09.1985 at 21:00 hours at surgery ward Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi with the allegation, in succinct that on 21.9.1985 (Saturday) at 4:00 PM, her co-villager Jagan Mahto, Lagan Mahto, Nagendra Mahto S/o Ganesh Mahto, Gopali Mahto, Yogendra Mahto, Nagendra Mahto S/o Gopali Mahto, Harendra Mahto, Ram Ashish Mahto and Kishori Mahto all armed with lathi, garasa intruded into the house of Budhan Mahto, rapping expletive and started searching her, then all the accused persons intruded into the room and dragged her out in the courtyard and Ram Ashish Mahto assaulted on her head by means of lathi, sustaining injury she fell down on the ground, then all the accused persons assaulted her by means of lathi. She received injury in her left gassa by the assault made by Ram Ashish Mahto. When her daughter-in-law and Budhan Mahto rushed in her rescue, the accused persons assaulted her daughter-in-law by means of lathi, fists and slap and assaulted Budhan Mahto by means of lathi blaming him the root cause of all disputes. Sustaining injury Budhan Mahto fell senseless. Therefore, Jagan Mahto took out a box containing attire and money from the room of Budhan Mahto and all the accused persons left the scene. The witnesses, Darab Lal Rai, Sitaram Rai, Rameswhar Singh, Habib Ansari and others witnessed the occurrence. The bone of contention is that earlier, the accused persons had assaulted the informant, Budhan Mahto and her daughter-in-law. Regarding the said occurrence, the criminal case is pending against them in the court and the accused persons were mounting pressure upon them to lift the said case, but she and Budhan Mahto had not obliged them.