CHAMRU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T.NO.307/87, convicting and sentencing both these appellants under Section 302/34, IPC to go RI for life where as the other two accused Rameshwar Mahto and Vijay Mahto were acquitted giving benefit of doubt.

(2.) The informant, Chohan Sao, PW 1, has alleged in the FIR, Ext. 2, that on 9.8.1995 at about 7 p.m. his younger brother, Rohan Sao, were returning after selling vegetables from village Patratu Bhurkunda and other villages and reached near Government dam which is near to his village, then the accused Chamru Mahto, Gallu Mahto, Vijay Mahto and Rameshwar Mahto, all of Village Talaswar, P.S.Barkagaon, Dist. Hazaribagh met. Rohan Sao (deceased) was having his Bahangi and Bucket, tied with ropes which he was carrying on his shoulder. He said to the accused that they had taken his agricultural lands that is why he is carrying the buckets of vegetables to sell. At this, all the four accused caught hold of him and started assaulting with fists and slaps. Rohan Sao cried for help. On his bulla, the informant, Chohan Sao, PW 1, Madho Sao, PW 2 and Jagdish Sao, PW 4 rushed there and saw that all the named four accused had laid down Rohan Sao on the ground and were giving fists and slaps on his person. They tied his neck with the rope of his Bahangi and started tightening it by pulling in opposite direction. The informant asked the accused, Chamru Mahto, that his brother would die if it was so done.Thereafter, Chamru Mahto ordered to catch the informant and also ordered to tie his neck with same rope and kill him. Being afraid, the informant turned back to some distance. He saw that all the accused tied the neck of his brother with rope resulting his death. Thereafter, all the accused persons went to their homes uttering that take your share out of the agricultural field. When the informant, PW 1, Chohan Sao, PW 2, Madho Sao and PW 4, Jagdish Sao, went near Rohan Sao then they found him dead. On hue and cry the villagers assembled there. The alleged occurrence took place only because there was difference with the accused and the deceased regarding landed properties. There was a case in between them but that was compromised even then, the accused person had not left possession of the lands given in the share of the deceased. The deceased had informed the informant that the accused may cause his murder only because of the landed properties.

(3.) In this case the informant, PW 1, Chohan Sao, PW 2, Madho Sao and PW 4, Jagdish Sao, are the eye-witnesses who were present and have asserted to have witnessed that these appellants with the help of the rope of Bahangi of the deceased tied his neck resulting his death only because he was demanding his share of lands. These three witnesses have stated that at about 7 p.m. his brother Rohan Sao was returning home from village Sadh. PW 1 (informant) was also returning his home having Kudal in his hand as he had gone to his paddy field. On his way, he saw his brother, Rohan Sao, and followed him. After some distance when they reached near a mango tree then his brother, Rohan Sao, met with the accused persons, namely, Rameshwar Mahto, Chamru Mahto, Gullu Mahto and Vijay Mahto and said them that they grabbed his whole landed properties so he is carrying the buckets. Chamru Mahto and Gallu Mahto, both the appellants in this criminal appeal, tied the neck of Rohan Sao with rope of his Bahangi and Sikka and pulled in opposite direction. The allegation against Rameshwar Mahto and Vijay Mahto, who have been acquitted by the learned Court below, is that they also assaulted Rohan Sao. On hulla of PW 1, the other witnesses, PW 2, Madho Sao and PW 4, Jagdish Sao, also went to the PO. They saw that Vijay Mahto had pressed the chest of Rohan Rao and Rameshwar Mahto was assaulting Rohan Sao. When these eye-witnesses went to the PO then the accused fled away. The informant and these two eye-witnesses saw Rohan Sao dead. They watched the dead body throughout the night and in the morning the informant and Padum Sao went to Thana and informed the police at about 8.30 a.m. The PO village is at a distance of 12 K.Ms. from the PS. The statement of the informant was recorded at the Thana on which the informant gave his LTI and Padum Sao signed on it who has not been examined as a prosecution witness in this case. The IO went to the PO and prepared inquest report in presence of the witnesses and sent the dead body for port-mortem examination. In the morning, village Chaukidar was also informed about the alleged occurrence who also went to the PS alongwith the informant. Prior to that he went to village Pipratand to search out the Chaukidar but he has gone to another village and was not met. PW 2, Madho Sao and PW 4, Jagdish Sao, had corroborated the evidence of the informant, PW 1 had stated that Gallu Mahto tied rope in the neck and pulled it whereas PW 4, Jagdish Sao, in his cross-examination, para 9, has deposed that before the IO he had stated that he has seen the alleged occurrence that Chamru Mahto and Gallu Mahto both tied rope in the neck of Rohan Sao and pulled it in opposite direction whereas the other accused, Rameshwar Mahto and Vijay Mahto were assaulting Rohan Sao. Thus in the examination-in-chief, para 1, inadvertently he could not name Chamru Mahto but the name of Chamru Mahto along with Gallu Mahto appeared in the cross-examination, para-9, when it was asked by the defence counsel to this witness. PW 4, Jagdish Sao, when went to the PO on the Hulla of PWs 1 and 2, then, he saw all the four accused, Rameshwar Mahto, Chamru Mahto, Gallu Mahto and Vijay Mahto, near the dead body of Rohan Sao. He had stated that all of them tied the neck of Rohan Sao with rope and pulled it but when he went near, then all of them fled away. He had not seen Rameshwar Mahto at the PO either assaulting Rohan Sao or fleeing away from that place.