SAKRU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th August, 2003 and 18th August, 2003 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1987/20 of 2002, whereby, the present appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 to be read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been punished for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for ten years imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and for three years imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is a case of the prosecution that on 22nd May, 1986 at about 12:00 noon at Village Aara Saram, Police Station Jaridih, District Bokaro, when the informant P.W. 10 Parmeshwar Mahto and his father, namely, Hari Mahto were at their field, the appellant accused as well as other co accused came with sharp cutting instruments like Tangi and other weapons and they assaulted the informant, who is P.W. 10 Parmeshwar Mahto, whose father intervened to save life of his son, who was also attacked by the appellant and other co accused with sharp cutting instrument and the accused have caused severe injuries to Hari Mahto, who expired on the spot. Mother of the informant (P.W.5 Kamini Devi) has also tried to intervene and she was also attacked by the appellant and other co accused and both P.W.5 -Kamini Devi and P.W.10 Parmeshwar Mahto have sustained injuries, which are incised wounds. First Information Report was lodged on the same day and the appellant and other co accused were named in the F.I.R. Investigation was carried out and upon recording of statement of several witnesses including injured eye witnesses and other eye witnesses, chargesheet was filed and the Sessions Trial Case No. 169 of 1987 was committed and on the basis of evidences on record, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant -accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Hari Mahto for life imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ten years imprisonment for endangering the life of P.W.10 Parmeshwar Mahto and for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code three years imprisonment for causing injuries to P.W.5 Kamini Devi. The appellant has been convicted for the aforesaid offences to be read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) IT is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the so called eye witnesses are, in fact, not the eye witnesses, at all. P.W.5 and P.W.10 are highly interested witnesses. None of the eye witnesses have stated that the appellant has caused injury upon the body of the deceased, which has resulted into the death of deceased. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there was old enmity between the parties. As stated by the defence witness, bamboo trees were not belonging to the victim and there was sudden fight between the appellant side and the victim side persons. The appellant has also sustained injuries, which has been proved by P.W.11 Dr. Surendra Narayan Chowdhary. Thus alternatively, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant is not falling within the definition of murder, but, it is falling withing the exception and, therefore, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to the murder. The appellant is in judicial custody since the date of judgment i.e. August 2003. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that even during trial also, the appellant was in the jail and he has remained in jail for more than 10 years.