BASUDEO MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 2.12.2003 and the order of sentence dated 3.12.2003 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. No. 356 of 2002/ 30 of 2003, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 452 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 326 /34 IPC and simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 452/34 IPC and it is directed that sentences would run concurrently. The convicts have also been directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each out of which, 75% of the said amount was to be given to the legal heirs of the deceased, Dalo Mahto as compensation.

(2.) FROM the record, it is revealed that there was a dispute between Dalo Mahto and Gotiya Khoso Mahto andothers with regard to extraction of Mahua from Mahua Tree. According to the deceased, the said tree was in his land and he did not allow anyone to pick up Mahua. On 4.4.2002 at 6 a.m. the accused - appellants along with other two accused persons Gokul Mahto and Babu Mahto came at the house of the deceased armed with weapons in their hands. They entered into the house of the deceased and he was dragged out from his house and they grounded him. Basudeo Mahto caused injury upon the deceased by sword (Talwar) and the other accused also caused injuries by different weapons, which they were holding in their hands. Some of the accused -appellants assisted in assaulting the deceased. The deceased fell down on the spot. A hue and cry was made, thereupon, Etwari Mahto and his son Arjun Mahto reached at the spot to help the deceased but the appellants also assaulted them so as to prevent them from helping the deceased. Thereafter, the villagers reached at the spot but the accused -appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. Dalo Mahto died at the spot due to the injuries caused by the appellants and the other co -accused. The injured witnesses, Etwari Mahto and Arjun Mahto were sent to the Hospital for their treatment and the matter was investigated by the police. After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the accused appellants as well as the other two co -accused, named above.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case has examined Etwari Mahto (P.W. -3) and Arjun Mahto(P.W. -4) asinjured eye witnesses, Somari Devi (P.W. - 6), Tarun Kumari (P.W. - 7), Lakhiya Devi (P.W. -8), the wife of P.W. -3, Etwari Mahto, Mahadeo Mahto, P.W. - 10, the informant of this case and Chetni Devi, P.W. - 16 as eye witnesses of the incident. The prosecution has also examined the Doctor, Kamleshwar Prasad, P.W -11, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. P.W.12 - Dr. Rajesh Kumar was also examined, who has proved the injuries on the persons of injured Etwari Mahto and Arjun Mahto. P.W. -13 - Yadu Mahto is not an eye witness as he reached at the spot and he saw the dead body and found injuries on the person of the deceased and he also saw Etwari Mahto and Arjun Mahto in injured condition. P.W. - 14, Rajendra Ravidas has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. - 15, Somyua Priyadarshi is the Investigating Officer of this case.