IMPORTANT POINT
The factum of holding the deceased to be murdered and dragging of his headless body by appellants is established by reliable testimony of eye witnesses, evidence of doctor, sketch map and other evidence. They were rightly convicted for murder of deceased by Courts below.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34-Murder of deceased Ramanand Mahto due to enemity-The head of deceased was severed from trunk-Head kept in plastic bag and trunk dragged to a pit full of water and thrown in it-Two eye witnesses PW2 and PW5 (nephew of deceased)-PW1 (son of deceased) came later and witnessed dragging of his father s trunk by appellants-PW2 did not mention names of appellants-Whether any scope of false or over implication? (No, as police came within a span of 1/2 hr. (Para 6)-PW5 was nephew of deceased-Whether becomes an interested witness? (No) (Para 7)-Whether medical evidence and evidence of investigating officer falsify story of dragging of headless body of deceased by appellants? (No) (Para 8)-Is there any abnormality? (No) (Para 8)-Result -Appeal dismissed-It is a case based on proper evidence-The cases of appellants cannot be treated differently.
Held : We have carefully and minutely examined the record including, as earlier stated, the evidence of Suresh Kumar (PW-5) read with Santosh Kumar (PW-1) and Ram Briksha Mahto (PW-2). Their evidence inspires confidence. It was natural for Ram Briksha Mahto not to name the persons who were dragging the headless body because he did not know them. On all material aspects, the testimony of these witnesses is trustworthy and reliable. It is not the law that the conviction cannot be based on the testimony of relations. That alone cannot be the ground to over win the conviction. The scratch injury, according to the testimony of the Doctor, is possible as a result of dragging. The non-mention of it by the Investigating Officer in the inquest report is of no consequence, in the light of other evidence on record. The High Court seems to be right in its conclusion that when a large number of persons were dragging the trunk after catching hold of the same, only a small portion may be touching the ground as a result whereof, there may not be a large number of injuries on account of dragging. Another factor which deserves to be noticed is that the Sessions Court, on perusal of the case diary, has recorded that the Investigating Officer was deliberately trying to help the defence. The contention that was urged in this regard before the Sessions Court and also before us was that the inquest report having been held at 11.15 p.m. and the statement/furdbeyan recorded at 11.30 p.m., inquest report should be treated as the FIR and not the FIR registered on the basis of the Furdbeyan and, therefore, the mention of the name of the appellants therein deserves to be ignored. The Court of Sessions noticed, on perusal of the case diary, that it appears that Investigating Officer first recorded the Furdbeyan and thereafter held the inquest on the dead body of the deceased, but recorded in the case diary, the time of recording of the Furdbeyan as 11.30 p.m. and that of holding of inquest as 11.15 p.m. in the reverse order to help the accused. In fact, the case diary shows that the Fardbeyan was recorded earlier and inquest later and, thus, inquest could not be treated as the FIR. Similarly, the telephonic conversation also could not be treated as FIR, as contended, as it was a cryptic information that was received and recorded in the daily diary regarding the commission of offence. The factum of dragging of the headless body stands established from the evidence of record with corroboration from the sketch map along with the explanatory notes thereupon showing the collection of fresh blood in huge quantity adjacent to the scooter and a line of blood on the path of the dragging from the scooter up to the pond where the trunk of the body was left. The manner and the vengeance with which the crime was committed shows that the accused were not bothered about others watching them and, therefore, the submission that the accused who were large in number having not caused any injury to Ram Briksha Mahto and Suresh Kumar would show the improbability of their presence on the scene of occurrence, has no substance. The cases of appellant No. 1 Mundrika and appellant No. 5 Ram Rup Mahto, cannot be treated differently. For the reason already noticed earlier, we are unable to accept the submission that the decision of the High Court is based on no evidence. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, finding no illegality in the judgment, the appeal is dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13)

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-The murder of deceased Ramanand Mahto was committed in a ghastly manner. The head of the deceased was severed from the trunk. 13 persons were charged for the offence including the appellants who were six in number. One out of 13 - Shyam Narain Mahto @ Nanhki Mahto was acquitted by the Sessions Court. Three of them-Rishi Mahto, Asmani Mahto and Anand Lal Mahto were acquitted by the High Court.

2. The special leave petitions filed by three of the accused - Lachhu Gaderi, Ramchandra Gaderi and Subhash Mahto challenging the judgment of the High Court confirming that of the Sessions Court were dismissed and, thus their conviction and sentence has been finally maintained.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased was riding a scooter and Ram Briksha Mahto (PW-2) and informant Suresh Kumar (PW-5) were sitting on the back of the scooter. Suresh Kumar was returning home after purchasing medicines when on the way deceased, who were riding a scooter on which Ram Briksha Mahto was sitting at the back, saw him and stopped the scooter and gave lift to him. The time was between 10.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. When they reached in front of tea stall of Lalan Mahto situated at Begampur Mandai Mohalla, one person who was sitting on a thella (handcart) blocked the road with it the moment the scooter reached near the said tea stall. All of a sudden, 10 to 15 persons came and pulled the deceased from the scooter. Lachhu Gaderi with Dab and Ramchandra Gaderi with Bhujali started assaulting the deceased. Dab and Bhujali are sharp edged weapons. The accused thrashed the deceased on the ground and his head was severed from the trunk by Ramchandra Gaderi and Lachhu Gaderi with their weapons while others were catching hold of the deceased. The trunk of the deceased was dragged towards the north. Santosh Kumar (PW-1), son of the deceased reached the place of occurrence on the alarm being raised by Suresh Kumar and Ram Briksha Mahto. All this happened on account of litigation concerning land that was going on between the deceased and Lachhu Gaderi and others.

4. Immediately after the occurrence, the Police was informed on telephone at about 11 p.m. The telephonic information was recorded in daily diary. Within about 15 minutes, i.e. at about 11.15 p.m., the Police reached at the place of occurrence and on the statement of Suresh Kumar (PW-5) who is the nephew of the deceased, the FIR was registered. The statement of Suresh Kumar was recorded at about 11.30 p.m. The names of the appellants were mentioned in the FIR. Ramachandra Gaderi and Lachhu Gaderi have said to have chopped of the head of the deceased. Other accused are said to have pulled down the deceased from the scooter and dragged the trunk and threw it in a pool of water. They are said to have caught hold of the deceased while Lachhu Gaderi and Ramchandra Gaderi were chopping of the head. Accused Subhash kept the severed head of the deceased in a plastic bag. Accused Mundrika is said to have extinguished the light. Santosh Kumar is said to have reached the place of occurrence when the trunk of his father was being dragged and he is the eye witness from the stage of the dragging whereas Ram Briksha Mahto and Suresh Kumar have said to have watched the entire occurrence. The conviction of Lachhu Gaderi, Ramchandra Gaderi and Subhash has been finally maintained, their Special Leave Petitions having been dismissed.

5. The place of occurrence is near Chhapri of accused Mundrika. Ram Briksha Mahto has named Ramachandra Gaderi and Lachhu Gaderi. According to his testimony, both were known to him. It has come in his testimony that he knew the deceased as he was living near the house of his-in-laws. The deceased, noticing this witness, stopped the scooter and offered to give him lift and later noticing Suresh Kumar gave lift to him as well. He further states that when the scooter of Ramanand Mahto reached near the shop of Lalan Mahto, a person blocked the road by thela and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 569

IMPORTANT POINT The factum of holding the deceased to be murdered and dragging of his headless body by appellants is established by reliable testimony of eye witnesses, evidence of doctor, sketch map and other evidence. They were rightly convicted for murder of deceased by Courts below.

IMPORTANT POINT
The factum of holding the deceased to be murdered and dragging of his headless body by appellants is established by reliable testimony of eye witnesses, evidence of doctor, sketch map and other evidence. They were rightly convicted for murder of deceased by Courts below.