JUDHISTIR MAHATO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, and appellant No. 2 Parikhit Mahato stands further convicted for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1986.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that on 5th of November. 1982. the informant and her family members had gone to harvest the paddy crop standing in Mauza -Gundligorha, P.S. Chandankiary, District Dhanbad. According to the informant, the appellant along with seven others came there armed variously and objected on harvesting the paddy. Further it is stated that when her husband Bidyadhar Mahato asserted that he has right to harvest the paddy, all the accused persons fell upon him with arms in their hands. They further assaulted Mahanand Mahto. It is alleged that during this occurrence appellant Parikhit Mahato threw a country -made bomb and injured many persons.

(3.) IN the present facts, it is undisputed fact that the alleged occurrence took place for harvesting paddy crops on a particular piece of land. The defence brought on record certain documents regarding Plot No. 1263 and 1375 claiming possession over the plot from where the informant tried to harvest DW -1 is one of the co -villagers where DVV -2 has brought on record six rent receipts (Ext. A to Ext. A/6 series). This has been discussed by the learned trial Court vide paragraph No. 17 in details. It further mentions that the prosecution has not been brought on record any document regarding the land on which paddy was being harvested, but orally asserted that Plot No. 1375 of Khata No. 10(110) was being harvested. In the present facts, when particular plot of land is being claimed by both the parties and defence bringing on record some documents and the prosecution asserting on mere oral submission, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the place of occurrence where harvesting was being done. The defence from the very beginning asserting that the informant party has trespassed and tried to harvest the paddy for which occurrence took place. I further find that PW -8, PW -9 and PW -10 are related and PW -17, the Investigating Officer only submitted charge -sheet as the investigation has already been completed. The Investigating Officer, Ram Lakhan Singh, has not been examined by the prosecution. The injuries found on PW -4 were simple in nature.