BRINDA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 13.1.1998 and 15.01.1998 respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, In Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1995 whereby both the appellants have been held guilty for commission of offences under Section 302/148 and 149, IPC and accordingly convicted under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Ram Mohan Mahato (PW 3) informed the Police on 1.7.1995 that on the previous day when he along with his uncle Charka Mahto alias Baliram Mahato (deceased) was returning from Rath Mela, Brinda Mahto (appellant No. 1) having a 'balua', (a sharp cutting weapon),in his hand, came running from behind and assaulted the informant which resulted in cut injuries in the three lingers of his right hand. Thereafter, Alam Mahto (appellant No. 2) came with a 'balua! whereupon the deceased assaulted him with an iron rod which caused him some injuries on which Alam Mahto snatched the rod from the deceased. Thereafter, Brinda Mahto and the other co-accused assaulted the deceased with balua, lathi and tangi due to which the deceased fell down on the ground and died. Alam Mahto inserted the pointed portion of the iron rod near the ear of the deceased. The motive of the occurrence as per the FIR is that in the year 1990, at the time of 'Holi', there was a quarrel between the parties in which the uncle and aunt of the informant as well as one Brinda Mahato were killed by the accused party. In that case, on the basis of the evidence of the deceased and others, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, appellants Brinda Mahato and Alam Mahato were released, being juvenile.

(3.) On the basis of the said Jardbeyan of the informant PW 3, Bharno PS Case No.64 of 1995 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid.