BUDHU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life thereunder on the charge of committing the murder of Gopal Hazam in furtherance of their common intention, by Shri. L.K. Sahay, 3rd Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by judgment and order dated 16th May, 1989, passed in S.T. No. 133b of 1988/67 of 1988

(2.) THE prosecution case is as follows: In the evening of 2.4.1987 Gopal Hazam, the deceased, at the instance of appellant Budhu Mahto, in the company of Duleshwar Bedia (P.W.5), his co - villager, went to the house of appellant Budhu Mahto situate at village Mahua Tungri, which is at a distance of about a -mile from village Haratu, the native place of the deceased as well as P.W.5, to reach Sakhua log. All the three had started for village Mahua Tungri around 6 P.M. from the place of Duleshwar Bedia. The Sakhua log had been purchased by appellant Budhu Mahto. When Gopal Hazam and Duleshwar Bedia were returning the late night, appellant Budhu Mahto accompanied them saying that he would reach them upto some distance. When they reached Piyar Bera Jungle, on the way appellant Budhu Mahto gave an axe blow on the back of Gopal Hazam, the deceased who fell down. In the meantime, the appellants Hawra Mahto, Dipnath Mahto and Rati Mahto came out of their hiding armed with axe and dealt several axe blows to the deceased and wounded him severely. Duleshwar Bedia tried to intervene, but he was chased by appellant Budhu Mahto armed with axe, who escaped hiding himself in the forest and ultimately reached his village Hartu and narrated the story to the Informant Suresh Hazam, the brother of the deceased, that all the appellants have axed the deceased to death in Piyar Bera Jungle. Thereupon, the informant accompanied by Duleshwar Bedia (P.W.5) and other villagers went to the forest to found that the deceased was lying dead in pool of blood with face down -ward and there were cut wounds on his body. On the basis of the information derived from Duleshwar Bedia, the informant lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 4) about the incident with Sikidiri Police Station the next day around 5.30 P.M. On this basis the present case was instituted, a formal fast information report (exhibit 3) was drawn up and after investigation charge -sheet was laid in court against the appellants. The motive alleged for commission of the occurrence is that the deceased had taken settlement of 40 decimals of land in village Jashpur from Ramdayal Lohar, the zamindar and the appellants wanted to take forcible possession of it and there was a Panchayati, but the appellants were not ready to accept the verdict of the Panchayati. In other words, the land dispute led to the murder of the deceased at the hands of the appellants.

(3.) THE point which falls for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. to the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.