NAGESHWAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above five appeals separately preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 5-5-2005 and order of sentence dated 6-5-2005 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. There are altogether 13 appellants but as they have been convicted differently under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, it would be convenient and proper to deal with their conviction and sentences appeal wise.

(2.) The background facts, as projected by the prosecution in the first information report, in a nutshell, are as follows :- The fardbeyan of the injured-informant Jyotsna Mandal was recorded at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar by Sub-Inspector of Police R.B. Paswan on 12-8-2002 at 7.30 p.m with the allegation that at about 5:30 p.m., when her father and brother Jan Mohan Mandal went to see the field, she also followed them and at that time, the driver of tractor Subodh Singh was ploughing the field. They were watching their field, when she saw Sanjay Mandal, Amar Mandal, Dayanand Mandal, Ambik Mandal alias Karu Mandal armed with swords, Jagdish Mandal, Umesh Mandal, Sashisekhar Mandal alias Kartik Mandal, Rajiv Mandal, Baikunth Mandal armed with rod, Nageshwar Mandal and Nilkanth Mandal armed with Farsa, Suresh Mandal armed with Bhala, Anandi Mandal armed with pistol, Ranjit Mandal having Barchhi, Kameshwaw Mandal having Katari in his hand, Upendra Mandal armed with Sabal and Muneshwar Mandal by forming unlawful assembly came there and surrounded her father. Baikunth Mandal and Nageshwar Mandal ordered to kill her father. Where after Sanjay Mandal, Amar Mandal and Dayanand Mandal assaulted her father with Swords, Nageshwar Mandal and Jagdish Mandal with an intention to kill her father assaulted him on his head with Farsa and rod respectively. After sustaining injury, her father fell down and became unconscious. Her brother Jan Mohan Mandal when tried to save his father, Suresh Mandal, Umesh Mandal, Sashishekhar alias Kartik Mandal, Ranjit Mandal, Ambik Mandal, Rajiv Mandal, Baikunth Mandal and Kameshwar Mandal armed with sword and iron rod assaulted Jan Mohan Mandal causing several injuries. Her brother became unconscious and fell down. The informant when raised alarm and started weeping, Upendra Mandal and Nilkanth Mandal caught hold of her hand and assaulted her with iron rod causing fracture in her left hand and she also received injuries in her waist. Hearing alarm, her two sisters namely Sandhya Mandal and Bibha Mandal reached there but they were also assaulted by Upendra Mandal with rod causing injuries in their hands and legs. Seeing the villagers coming towards the place of occurrence, one of the accused Anandi Mandal fired from his pistol. Thereafter all the accused persons retreated towards the house of Nageshwar Mandal. Her another brother Jag Mohan Mandal and Shivram Mandal also came to the place of occurrence after hearing alarm. Where after with the help of the villagers, her father and injured brother Jan Mohan Mandal were brought to the hospital but her father was declared dead by the attending doctors. The reason as disclosed by the informant was the pendency of a case and land dispute between the parties.

(3.) On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Jasidih (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 117 of 2002 was instituted on 12-8-2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. On completion of the investigation, the police charge-sheeted all the 13 accused persons for trial. Where after the cognizance of offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of session. The Court concerned framed the charges against all the accused persons under Sec. 302/149, 148 and 307/149 of IPC. A separate charge was also framed against one of the accused Anandi Mandal under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. After completion of the prosecution evidences, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The appellants in their statements had only pleaded as not guilty but the defence put by them was that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous land dispute between the parties.