BHARAT MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Bharat Mahato, Hukumlal Mahato, Gulab Chand Mahato and Rajendra Mahato, they stood convicted under Sections 307 I.P.C and were ordered to go rigorous imprisonment for five years vide judgment dated 09.11.2002 passed in S. T. Case No. 609 of 1993 by Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.3rd, Bokaro.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as has been recorded in the fardbeyan of Hublal Rajwar by S.I., R.B. Mahto of Chas (M) Police station on 28.09.1988 at 10:45 Hrs. in Referal Hospital, Chas alleging that in the morning the cousin of the informant, Bhola Rajwar (P.W.4) along with his nephew had gone to field in order to harvest Sinduwar. In the meanwhile, Bharat Mahto, Hukum Lal Mahto, Gulab Chand Mahto and Rajendra Mahto came and asked why he is harvesting Sinduwar, thereafter hot exchange of words took place. It is alleged that Bharat Mahto was armed with Farsa and Rajendra Mahto was armed with Chota Rangeela. Gulab Chand Mahto assaulted Bhola Rajwar with farsa on the head, consequent thereupon he fell on the ground thereafter, Gulab Chand Mahto and Rajendra Mahto also assaulted with Chota Rangeela on the head of Bhola Rajwar, who received injury. In the meanwhile the informant who was nearby field came there whereupon the accused persons fled away.

(3.) On the basis of these allegations Chas(M) P.S. Case No. 68 of 1988 dated 28.09.1988 was instituted under Sections 323, 324, 307/34 IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet and thereafter charges were framed under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C on 14.03.2000 thereafter, trial proceeded and during course of trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses namely, P.W.1 Keshav Chandra Rajwar, who is not an eye witness after occurrence he reached at the place of occurrence. P.W.2 Hemant Lal Rajwar, son of the injured Bhola Rajwar, who is also not an eye witness . P.W.3 Naushad Ansari who is not eye witness and after occurrence he reached at the place of occurrence. P.W.4, Bhola Rajwar, who was injured witness. P.W.5, Haradhan Rajwar, who was declared hostile and P.W.6, Ali Ahmed Ansari who was advocate clerk, has proved the injury report issued by Dr. M. Prasad, Deputy Superintendent, Referal Hospital, Chas, which is marked as Ext.3 (with objection). Ext.1 is the written report, Ext.2 is the signature of Naushad Ansari on affidavit dated 10.10.1988, Ext.2/A is the signature of Paltu Ram Mahto on affidavit dated 10.10.1988, Ext.3 is the medical report of Hemant Lal Rajwar, Ext.3/A is the medical report of Bhola Rajwar, Ext. 3/B is the medical report of Hublal Rajwar (with mark an objection by defence) and Ext.4 is the formal F.I.R.