LAWS(JHAR)-2006-8-30

DIWAKAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On August 21, 2006
Diwakar Mahto Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were tried for the charges Under Sections 307, 325, 324, 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bokaro. The appellant No. 10 Chotu Mahto has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years Under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for two years Under Sections 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for one year Under Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for one year Under Sections 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences are to run concurrently. The rest 14 appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years Under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for two years Under Sections 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year Under Sections 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 02.10.1997 at about 7 a.m.while the informant (P.W.7) was watching the crops, as appointed by the villagers, the appellant No. 1 along with rest of the appellants reached there and surrounded the informant. The appellant No. 1, Diwakar Mahto, then instigated the other appellants whereupon appellant Nos. 4, 6 and 7 hurled lathi blows on the informant causing injuries on his hand and forehead. When the informant raised alarm, the inmates of neighbourhood including Bholu Mahto, Mahendra Mahto, Amulya Mahto, Gangadhar Mahto rushed to the place of occurrence. The accused -appellants also assaulted the said persons with lathi and tangi. Chotu Mahto, allegedly, was armed with tangi while other accused persons were allegedly holding lathi. The cause of occurrence is said to be the dispute regarding grazing of cattle.

(3.) ONE defence witness was also examined who stated that there was a case and counter case.