RAM BAHADUR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 28th August, 2002 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 476 of 1996 whereby he has convicted all the three appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.1, Ram Bahadur Mahto has been further convicted under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

(2.) Appellant No.2, Bhullar Mahto has been further convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no.3, Ram Binod Mahto has been convicted also for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. By the impugned order dated 29.8.2002, for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. all the three appellants have been awarded imprisonment for life. For the offence under Explosive Substance Act appellant no.1, Ram Bahadur Mahto has been awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. appellant no. 2, Bhullar Mahto has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. appellant no.3, Ram Binod Mahto has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of Ram Bilas Mahto (P.W.4) who is nephew of deceased Tetar Mahto. The Fardbeyan was recorded on the date of occurrence i.e. 21.4.1996 at 11. A.M. at village Mahinam Pohaddi, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga where the alleged occurrence took place at about 10 A.M. The formal F.I.R. was registered on the same date at 13.00 hours leading to Bahera P.S. Case No. 89 of 1996 dated 21.4.1996.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case the informant, Ram Bilas Mahto along with his deceased uncle Tetar Mahto father of Jokhan Mahto (P.W.2) and brother of Ramdeo Mahto (P.W.1) were constructing a hut since the morning hours on their lands near school situated by the side of road. At about 10 A.M. Ram Bahadur Mahto, Appellant no.1 came and asked them not to construct the hut. The informant and his companions however, continued with the construction of the hut. Appellant no. 1 went back and returned soon with his father Bhullar Mahto (Appellant No.2} and his brother Ram Binod Mahto (Appellant no.3) and Ram Kumar Mahto (a juvenile whose trial was separated). Appellant no.1 was having a Jhola (bag) which contained bombs. Appellant no.2 and Ram Kumar Mahto were having lathies in their hands. Appellant No.3 was carrying a knife. On his arrival Appellant no.1 again forbade the informant party from constructing the hut but they continued with the construction. Thereupon Appellant no.1 took out a bomb from his bag and assaulted the deceased, Tetar Mahto on his mouth. He sustained injuries and fell down and died soon thereafter. Appellant No.3, Ram Binod Mahto assaulted the informant with knife on the head causing injury. Jokhan Mahto (P.W, 2), father of the informant was assaulted with lathi by Ram Kumar Mahto and Appellant no.2, Bhuilar Mahto. As a result his left hand got fractured. On hue and cry villagers assembled and the accused persons ran away. It was further disclosed in the fardbeyan that deceased Tetar Mahto had no issue and he used to live with the family of the informant but Appellant no.1 used to threaten the informant as well as his uncle Tetar Mahto, the deceased with a view to force Tetar Mahto to live with him and gift his land to the accused persons otherwise the result would be bad. Accused had also received bomb injuries on account of their own acts.