Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. PATEL, AMITAV K. GUPTA, JJ.
Kajru Mahto, son of Late Barhan Mahto - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 495 of 2010 With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 450 of 2010
Decided On : 01-09-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 300, 34 – Order of Conviction – Both the Criminal Appeals have been preferred by the appellants accused, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial, whereby, these appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in case of default, further simple imprisonment for six months has been imposed, with a direction that 60% of the fine shall go to the widow of the deceased – However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. – Held, Learned A.P.Ps., appearing on behalf of the State submitted that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in convicting these appellants for causing murder of the deceased and the prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by these appellants beyond reasonable doubts. – It is further submitted by the learned A.P.Ps. in both the appeals that neither there are major contradictions nor major omissions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. – It is also submitted by the learned A.P.Ps. that the case of the prosecution is based upon the evidence of several eye witnesses, who are P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6. – It is further submitted by learned A.P.Ps. that looking to the medical evidence given by P.W.10, there is enough corroboration to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. – It is further submitted by the learned A.P.Ps., appearing on behalf of the State that the presence of these appellants has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses – Thus, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in convicting these appellants vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial and, hence, these Criminal Appeals may not be entertained by this Court. – Court hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VIII, Ranchi to the extent that conviction of these appellants for causing murder of the deceased is converted into culpable homicide, not amounting to murder – It is the case of the prosecution that occurrence has taken place P.W.6 is an informant, who has given statement before the police that after hearing alarm of the deceased he rushed at the place of the occurrence where other persons were also present and he saw these appellants causing injuries to Bhuneshwar Mahto by Balwa and Farsa, which are sharp cutting instruments – Bhuneshwar Mahto was immediately taken to the hospital, who expired – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VIII, Ranchi is hereby set aside and the period of sentence undergone by the above appellants shall be set off as against the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years imposed under Section 304 Part-II. – Criminal Appeals Allowed
D.N. Patel, J.
1. Both the Criminal Appeals have been preferred by the appellants accused, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 1st April, 2010 and 3rd April, 2010 respectively, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 252 of 1994, whereby, these appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in case of default, further simple imprisonment for six months has been imposed, with a direction that 60% of the fine shall go to the widow of the deceased. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the Prosecution:
The case of the prosecution is that on 2nd November, 1993 at 04:30 P.M, the informant Bodhan Mahto (P.W-6) gave fardbeyan to police that on 29th October, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. when he was going from his house to the house of one Bhushan Singh, he heard the noise of scuffle near the house of his brother Bhuneshwar Mahto (deceased) and thereafter he along with Bhushan Singh immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that (1) Kajru Mahto, (2) Gandu Mahto and (3) Mohan Mahto were assaulting his brother Bhuneshwar Mahto with Balwa and Farsa and also abused him. The informant further alleged that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the aforesaid accused persons left his brother who was grievously injured. The informant saw that blood was oozing out from the head of his brother. Thereafter, the informant with the help of other persons took his injured brother to Burmu Hospital and from there, the Doctor referred him to RMCH, Ranchi, who was still unconscious and unable to speak. The informant further alleged that few days prior to the occurrence, the above named accused persons had assaulted his brother Bhuneshwar Mahto on account of grazing of the field of his brother by the goat of Kajru Mahto and due to that reason, this occurrence took place.
Altogether ten witnesses have been examined by the prosecution:
P.W-1
Manoj Yadav
He is a nephew of deceased Bhuneshwar Mahto and is an Eye witness of the occurrence.
P.W-2
Bhushan Singh
He is an Eye witness of the occurrence.
P.W-3
Pachu Mahto
He is a nephew of deceased Bhuneshwar Mahto and is an Eye witness of the occurrence.
P.W-4
Nanhaki Devi
She is a niece of deceased Bhuneshwar Mahto and is an Eye witness of the occurrence.
P.W-5
Guliya Devi
She is a wife of deceased Bhuneshwar Mahto and is an Eye witness of the occurrence.
P.W-6
Bodhan Mahto
He is an informant of this case and is brother of deceased Bhuneshwar Mahto. He is an Eye witness of the occurrence. He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e marked as Ext.1
P.W-7
Rajesh Kumar Singh
Tendered witness
P.W-8
Triloki Nath Pathak
He is an Investigating officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan i.e marked as Ext.2. He has also proved the Inquest report and formal FIR i.e marked as Ext.3 and 4 respectively.
P.W-9
Niranjan Kumar Ghosh
He is an officer-in-charge of Burmu Police station. He has submitted the charge-sheet in the court.
P.W-10
Dr. Tulsi Mahto
He is a Doctor who has conducted the Post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Bhuneshwar Mahto and has proved the Post-mortem report i.e marked as Ext.5
Three witnesses have been examined by the defence:
D.W-1
Binod Singh
He deposed that deceased Bhuneshwar Mahto was addicted to wine and on date of occurrenc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
