HEMLAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, NOW JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.5.1992 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 28 of 1985 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence has been passed under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Pati Sao (P.W. 5) alongwith his brother Khirodhar Sao (deceased) and brother -in -law Kaila Sao (PW. 4) at about 7.00 A.M. on 15.6.1982, went to plough the field popularly known as Katash Tam belonging to Kaila Sao. When they ploughed a small portion of the field then all the aforesaid accused persons alongwith the wife of Jitan Mahto and two wives of accused Jugeshwar Mahto and the wife and the daughter of accused Hemlal Mahto, all having lathi and danda in their hands arrived there at the field in question and they protested against the ploughing of the land. There was exchange of hot words followed by assault and infliction of injuries on Khirodhar Sao (deceased) Pati Sao (P.W. 5), Kaila Sao (P.W. 4) Jamni Devi (P.W. 2) who is wife of P.W. 5, Somri Devi, (P.W. 1) wife of Khirodhar Sao and Tetari Devi (P.W. 3) wife of P.W. 4 by the accused persons. The accused Hemlal Mahto instigated and assaulted P.W. 5 on his hands and left leg. The accused Jugeshwar Mahto inflicted lathi blow on the head and left hand of Khirodhar Sao and after he fell down, the accused Horil Mahto and Jugeshwar Mahto jumped over his chest and stomach and pressed the same with their feet. The accused Mahadeo Mahto showered lathi blows on P.W. 4. The accused persons also assaulted P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who had arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing hue and cry. The injured persons were taken to Barhi State Dispensary where they were examined by the Doctor M.P. Sinha (P.W. 7). In view of the gravity and seriousness of injuries on Khirodhar Sao, he was referred to Hazaribagh Sadar Hospital but unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The incident was said to have taken place in sequel to land dispute.

(3.) THE defence was of total denial and false implication. The specific defence as gathered from the trends of cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses was that the land in question was not in possession of the prosecution party rather it was in possession of the accused persons and the prosecution party wanted to take forcible possession of the same. The accused entered into defence and. examined the defence witness named Yadunandan Prasad (D.W.1) who proved a sale deed (Ext. -B). Beside Exhibit -B, certain other documents were also brought on record by the accused persons i.e. Ext. -C, the F.I.R. of the counter case filed by the accused persons. In their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused simply denied the occurrence.