SURENDRA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 13.06.2002, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Criminal Appeal No.16-C of 2000/ 4 of 2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with co-convict was partly allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2000, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saraikella, whereby the petitioner along with co-accused were convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 325/34 of the IPC and were sentenced for the aforesaid charges were modified only to the extent that the conviction under Section 323 was sustained whereas the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 325 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 26.07.91 at about 8.30 pm the informant-Purna Chandra Mahto along with other family members were sitting and chatting in their verandah. All of a sudden, the accused persons came there. The co-accused Rameshwer Mahto and Anup Mahto dragged his daughter and Anup Mahto assaulted on her head. The informant was also assaulted by Dasrath Mahto with Lathi on his head and right shoulder and by the petitioner with Lathi blow.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case since there was a dispute regarding a passage. The petitioner and the informant are full brothers and the entire property was partitioned among them, but only due to the dispute regarding entry, a false case has been instituted against the petitioner. He further contended that the learned Trial Court only on the basis of deposition of P.W. Nos.2, 3 and 4, convicted the petitioner and the other co-accused, but failed to appreciate that the informant himself has admitted that it was night time and he could not say with certainty who had assaulted whom. The learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioner is a government servant and is having no criminal antecedent and even in this case he has been falsely implicated.