BAID NATH MAHATO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.9.96 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 382/94, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for life.

(2.) THE factual matrix leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 20.6.94 the deceased More Mahato was grazing his cattle when the appellant Baid Nath Mahato assaulted him with stone resulting in his death. According to the informant Ghanshyam Mahato, this was reported to him by PW 2 Bhogta Mahato, brother of the deceased on the road when he was going to see his field. The informant along with PW 2 rushed towards the PO. According to PW 1, when they were going towards the PO they found the appellant fleeing away and stopped by them and asked why he has committed this murder. The informant further asserted that the appellant threatened them saying that he has killed More Mahato. In the meantime villagers assembled but the appellant fled away. The informant along with other witnesses arrived at the PO to find that the deceased was lying with back of his head badly broken and brain materials coming out. The prosecution further asserted that the deceased was an accused in the murder of the wife of appellant, for which he has remained in custody and recently came out on ball. The matter was reported to Chandil police, which arrived at the PO in the afternoon and recorded the statement of PW 1, on the basis of which Chandil P.S. Case No. 5/94 was registered under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. After investigation the case was committed for trial by the court of Sessions. The trial court after examining witnesses found and held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) MRS . Jaya Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses may not be probable as the PO was situated at a distance from the village and none of inmates of the adjacent houses have come forward to support the prosecution case. Mrs. Roy further pointed out that the injuries found on the dead body were not possible by a single person, who has got no arm with him. Therefore, the prosecution case should not have been believed by the trial court. She further pointed out that the appellant has remained in custody for more than 12 years.