DHURAN MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.9.2001 and order of sentence dated 20.9.2001 passed by Shri Abdul Samad, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.06 of 1991 against the appellants namely Dhuran Mahato and Radhey Mahato by which both the appellants have been found guilty for the offence U/Ss 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ -each and in default of payment of fine, they are further directed to undergo R.I. for 1 year. Further the appellant Radhey Mahato found guilty u/s 27 of the Arms Act is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ -and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo R.I. for Six months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case was started on the F.I.R. given by the informant (P.W.5), Parshuram Yadav is that on 26.11.1986 at about 9.30 p.m. when he along with one Basudeo Yadav was returning after attending 'Shradh of his uncle, he saw four persons in the flash light of his torch. He identified them as accused Dhuran Mahato, Dashrath Mahato, Radhey Mahato and Teklal Mahato (since deceased). There upon after the order of Dhuran Mahato, Radhey Mahato fired three shot with his pistol upon the informant, out of which one shot hit below the knee. It is said that Radhey Mahato fired his pistol in order to take life of the informant. On the basis of the said written report police registered a case u/s 307,326 of the I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet u/s 307/34,326of the I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act. Since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, therefore learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the case and committed the case to the court of Sessions. Finally the case was tried before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar who after trial found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence against Radhey Mahato except the evidence of P.W.5 that he got injured by firing of Radhey Mahato who took the orders from Dhuran Mahato. The said evidence has not been proved because there is no corroborative evidence. The doctor, who has proved the injury report marked as ext.1, stated nothing about the injury and it will appear from the injury report that the injuries caused to the informant are simple in nature and hence there is no question of attempt to murder of the informant by Radhey Mahato. The entire prosecution case is full of doubt and the accused / appellant who has suffered the long drawn prosecution since 1986 and has also remained in jail for more than a year deserves sympathetical treatment and he should be acquitted from the charges.