IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of careful scrutiny of witness testimonies and the principle of benefit of doubt in criminal cases, leading to acquittals and affirmations of convictions based on evidence.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. The judgment of conviction under Sections 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the IPC is under challenge in the instant criminal appeal.

2. As per the fardbeyan of Anju Devi recorded on 02.01.2002, on 01.01.2002 at about 7 a.m. when her father-in-law was giving fodder to the cattle, Kameshwar Mahto, Tiru @ Lalbihari Mahto, Birju Mahto, Parmeshwar Mahto, Gurdayal Mahto, Bhola Mahto, Sundar Mahto, Kishun Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Dongni Devi, Pashilini Devi and Reena Devi came armed with weapons and surrounded her father-in-law and started abusing him. There was hot exchange of words and it is alleged that on incitement of Bhola Mahto to kill Sukhi Mahto, the accused persons Hiru Mahto, Lalbihari Mahto, Birju Mahto armed with Lathi, assaulted Sukhi Mahto on his head, resulting in bleeding injury as a result he fell down. On alarm being raised, Birendra Mahto came running to his rescue, who was also assaulted by Parmeshwar Mahto, Bhola Mahto and Kameshwar Mahto. The genesis of offence has been stated to be trivial dispute over collecting cow dung.

3. On the fardbeyan, Barkagaon P.S. Case 2/2002 was registered against all the 13 named accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 307 and 302 of the IPC. Police on investigation, submitted charge sheet against five named accused persons. These four appellants and one Parmeshwar Mahto were put on trial for the offence 147, 148, 323, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

4. Altogether 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and thereafter, statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Four witnesses have also been examined on behalf of defence. On trial, one of the accused Parmeshwar Mahto has been acquitted of the charges on the plea of alibi.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

5. PW-4, who happens to be the brother of the deceased, has not named Tiru Mahto as assailant in his deposition. PW-3 Neman Mahto has named other accused persons, but has not named this appellant Tiru Mahto to be involved in the assault. His cross-examination has been refused by the defence therefore, his deposition stands accepted that Tiru Mahto was not involved in the incidence.

PW-5 has not named Tiru Mahto as the assailant. Only allegation as against him is that he had assaulted Birendra Mahto as stated by PW-5 in Para-2. PW-6, who came at the place of occurrence immediately after the incidence, saw the accused persons fleeing from there. He has also not named this appellant-Tiru @ Lalbihari Mahto to be among them.

6. Prosecution version has been falsified in view of acquittal of Parmeshwar Mahto on the plea of alibi. The informant-PW-7 and other witnesses had deposed that Parmeshwar Mahto was also the member of unlawful assembly who had assaulted the deceased. During trial, it was found that he was not present at the place of occurrence, rather he was at Chennai at the relevant time. On the point of sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant-Tiru @ Lalbihari Mahto that he has already undergone imprisonment for more than three years eight months.

7. FIR of the case is itself under cloud of suspicion, as it is not the first version which has come on record. PW-7-informant of the case has herself deposed in Para-10 that when her father-in-law Sukhi Mahto was admitted in RMCH, Ranchi, Ranchi police has recorded her statement and she has also signed over it. Furthermore, PW-5 has deposed in Para-6 that on the very day of incidence, information regarding incidence was given to the police by Baleshwar Mahto, whereas FIR has been lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of PW-7. On the next day of incidence i.e. on 02.01.2002, FIR was lodged after due deliberation and afterthought impleading altogether 13 persons and after investigation, the police found the case true only against five of them and submitted charge sheet. Out of said five persons, learned trial Court found the case against Parmeshwa