GUNA @ GUNADHAR MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 each, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and appellant Guna @ Gunadhar Mahato stands further convicted under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 2000. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix leading to this appeal are that one Paltan Mahto was sitting outside his house situated in Mauza Bhela Tanr, Police Station -Barwadda, Govindpur, district -Dhanbad in the afternoon of 16.4.1999, when all of a sudden, the appellants arrived armed with hockey stick and lathi, and started assaulting him. The deceased raised alarms on which, informant (PW 7) Chhumia Devi, her daughter (PW 2) and daughter -in -law (PW (3) rushed out to find that the appellants were assaulting indiscriminately Paltan Mahto with hockey stick and lathi. The informant tried to intervene in which she also received injuries on her right arm. According to the informant, all the appellants continued assaulting him till he died. She further alleged that after death of her husband, appellants put a gloss with blood on their forehead and fled away. She further alleged that this incident has taken place because of dispute in partition of the ancestral properties with the appellants who were nephew of the deceased.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial Court has accepted the version of only interested witnesses, who were tutored and apparently not trust worthy. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, stressed before us that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have contradicted each of them on material points. It is further asserted that the. police has arrived at the place of occurrence on receiving information, which should have been treated as fardbeyan in this case. However, later on, false and concocted version of the occurrence was brought on record in connivance of the police implicating the appellants. In this context, it was pointed out that the alleged time of occurrence was at 3.00 p.m. whereas registration of the case was at 10.00 p.m. after recording the statements of PW 7 at 6.45 p.m. In this context our attention was drawn towards the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence only two kilometers. Learned Counsel further pointed out that even at the time of recording of the fardbeyan, the Investigating Officer did not prepare the inquest report on fake plea that due to darkness he could not prepare the inquest report. Therefor, a reasonable doubt is created upon the prosecution version. He further pointed out that the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation in most perfunctory manner without ascertaining the motive, previous enmity and dispute for partition of ancestral properties. According to the learned Counsel, the incident has taken place in different manner in Bhagta Mela in which large number of people assembled, consumed liquor and there may happen free fight resulting in his death. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the son and nephew of the deceased have preferred not to come forward as witness in this case and further in absence of any injury report of the informant, the prosecution version becomes doubtful.