LACHHAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sole appellant Lachhan Mahto @ Laxman Mahto has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2001 and 25.5.2001 respectively passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/307/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, for ten years and for ten years respectively and fine of Rs. 1000.00 on each count and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months each, all the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the after noon of 29.4.1989 P.W. 1 Dr. Ahmad Ali visited village Tarwa P.S. Keredari, district Hazaribagh in course of attending his patient Bandhan Ganjhu where after the treatment some dispute arose between the doctor and Bandhan Ganjhu on payment of fees. As further stated the appellant took up the cause and threatened him for asking exorbitant fees. However after this the doctor came to the house of the informant where he informed them regarding the incident and stayed for sometime. According to the informant Khairu Nisa P.W. 4 after sometime the appellant along with Rajendra Mahto and Ratan Mahto arrived searching Dr. Ahmad and returned back on being informed that they have already left. However immediately two of them returned with arms and bundles of straw to put the house on fire. She further asserted that when she protested they pushed P.W. 2 and 4 inside the house along with deceased Basiruddein and fastened the chain from out side after which the house was set on fire with the help of straws.

(3.) THE police after investigation submitted charge sheet against three persons and they were charged for offences under Sec. 302,307,436/34 of the Indian Penal Code jointly on 27.5.1991 to which they claimed innocence. During the trial accused Rajendra Mahto absconded. The learned trial court after considering the evidence available on the records found and held appellant along with Ratan Mahto guilty for the charges under Sec. 302,307,436/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However it was found that convict Ratan Mahto was minor at the time of the occurrence and sent his case before the Juvenile Board after holding him guilty. The present appellant has been sentenced as mentioned aforesaid.