PRAHLAD MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentences passed in Sessions Case No. 40/1986/24/1987 whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147/148/149/342/379/302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life under Sections 302/34 IPC, RI for 2 years under Section 147 IPC, RI for one year under Section 342 IPC and RI for three years under Section 379 IPC. All the appellants except the appellant No. 7 have further sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 323 IPC, RI for three years under Section 325 IPC. The appellant No. 3 has been further sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 148 IPC and RI for five years under Section 325 IPC. The appellant No. 5 has been further sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 14.11.1985 at about 12.30 p.m. while the informant Harihar Das PW 7 and his relative Jalim Mahara (deceased) were harvesting paddy crops in their field all the appellants armed with weapons came over there and asked as to why they were harvesting the paddy crops, The informant replied that the land belonged to him and he had cultivated the paddy crops and thus he has right to harvest the paddy crops. Thereupon the appellant No. 6 ordered the other appellants to finish the informant. On the said command the appellant No. 3 hurled a bhala blow on the head of the informant. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 also assaulted the informant with iron rot and lathi (stick) respectively. When Jalim Mahara came to rescue the informant, he was also assaulted by the appellant No. 1 with iron rod. The appellant Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 assaulted Jalim Mahara with lathi (stick) and appellant No. 3 gave bhala (spear) blow on his head. Jalim Mahara was seriously injured and became unconscious. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by several persons. Both the injured persons were taken to the police station, but in the way Jalim Mahara succumbed to the serious injures sustained by him.

(3.) THE defence of the appellants is the total denial of the alleged occurrence. According to the appellants, they were falsely implicated in this case on account of longstanding land disputed between the appellants, family and the Maharas (informants party).