BINAY MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE our short order of even date, the instant appeal already stands allowed partly by altering the conviction from 302 IPC to 304 Part II and reducing the sentence of both the accused to the period already undergone by them. We now enter into a detailed discussion.

(2.) APPELLANTS , Binay Mahto and Radhika Mahto, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj, dated 28/31.01.2004, whereby both of them stand convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and 323 IPC, have preferred the instant appeal. The sentence imposed upon both of them under Sections 302/34 IPC is life imprisonment whereas under Section 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) IT needs to be mentioned here that along with the aforesaid two accused, Aditya Mahto, Sudama Mahto and Durga Mahto had also faced trial for the aforesaid offences, but they have been convicted under Section 323 IPC only as their cases have been segregated from these two accused. They have been released on probation and that appears to be the reason that they have not filed any appeal impugning judgment of the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 323 IPC.