MITHLESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.12.2002 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 118 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted under section 148,323 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offences under section 148 and 323 IPC and R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 307 IPC.

(2.) The case of prosecution in short as per the FIR is that the informant Jailal Mahto was returning to his home from Makauli Colliery along with Khera Mahto, Akal Mahto, Bhulu Mahto, Keshow Singh. It is further alleged that when the informant reached at Gothawar at about 7 p.m., suddenly 7 to 8 persons arrived and hurled a bomb. It is further stated that the informant received injury on his right hand and he fell down. Thereafter the aforesaid persons assaulted him repeatedly with iron rod. He further stated that he identified Sarju Singh, Kitti Singh, Mathur Singh and Mithlesh Mahto in the light of torch flashed by some accused persons. He further alleged that Sarju Singh exhorted to kill him. It is then alleged that the aforesaid persons also assaulted Akal Mahto with rod due to that he received injury. It is further stated that on hearing hulla villagers arrived, then accused persons fled away.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid statement Nawadih P.S. Case No. 29 of 1991 under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 341 of the IPC and also under section 3 /4 of Explosive Substance Act instituted against the appellant. It appears that after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341 of the IPC. However, no charge sheet submitted under section 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. It appears that thereafter the case has been committed to the court of Sessions as the offence under sections 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Thereafter the charges framed and explained to the appellants under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 342 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case. After close of the case of prosecution, the statement of appellants recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which their defence is of total denial. The defence also examined one witness in support of its case. It appears that after considering the evidence available on record, learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, against that the present appeal has been filed.