Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 6159
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sri Ananda Sen, Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, JJ
SHIV PRASAD MAHTO And ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
Cr.A(DB) 438 / 2002
Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP, Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, Advocate
The court upheld the convictions for murder and attempted murder, affirming that unlawful assembly armed with weapons constitutes a serious offense, dismissing the appellants' claims of private defense.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/149 and 307/149 - Conviction and sentencing of appellants for murder and attempted murder in land dispute - Appellants attacked informant's family while they were ploughing their field, resulting in death and injuries - The claims of private defense were rejected as the appellants did not establish their possession legally. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Unlawful assembly - Formation of unlawful assembly armed with weapons constitutes a serious offense, and all members are liable for the actions taken in furtherance of the common object. (Paras 15)
Facts of the case:
The informant and his family were attacked by the appellants, resulting in the death of the informant's father and injuries to the informant and his mother during a land dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conviction based on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence, rejecting the appellants' claims of legal possession and self-defense.
Issues: The court addressed whether the appellants had a right to private defense and whether the evidence supported their claims of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellants' plea of private defense was untenable, as they could seek legal remedies instead of resorting to violence.
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
No.125/1999 (arising out of Garwha P.S. Case No. 240 of 1998 and G.R. No. 804 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the IPC and RI for ten years under Sections 307/149 of the IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. As per the FIR, informant Sanjay Mahto (PW-4) was ploughing his field by tractor on 24.12.1998 at 4:00 O’clock in the evening. His father Krishna Mahto was doing spade work in the same field and his mother was standing there with seeds of wheat for sowing in the field. In the meantime, his agnates namely Shiv Prasad Mahto, Manijar Mahto, Barku Mahto, Harihar Mahto, Ram Prawesh Mahto, Jag Mohan Mahto, Awdesh Mahto, Jai Prakash Mahto and Bhagat Raj Mahto (all the appellants) came there armed with garasa , sword, lathi and tangi etc. and opposed the informant’s family for sowing seeds of wheat in the field. At this, they did not stop or relent. Thereafter, the informant and his father were attacked by the accused persons and when his mother came to his rescue, she was also assaulted by them. Specific overt act has been attributed to Shiv Prasad Mahto and Manijar Mahto who were armed with garasa , Harihar Mahto who was armed with sword whereas the other accused persons were armed with lathi . The informant was critically injured and admitted in hospital. His mother was also inflicted with Garasa blow by Manijar Mahto. The genesis of offence has been stated to be land dispute which was in cultivating possession of informant.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Garwha P.S. Case No. 240 of 1998 was registered against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the IPC. After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken and the appellants were put on trial for the offence under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 147 of the IPC.
4. In order to prove the case, altogether eleven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and relevant documents have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.
5. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of all the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded not guilty. Defence has also exhibited certain documents to buttress their claim of possession over the land in question. These documents have been marked as Ext.- A to D, are orders passed by the Revenue Court.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the land in dispute is of the appellants and submitted Exhibit-B which is certified copy of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate in Miscellaneous Case No. 1020 of 1988 under Section 145 of Cr. P.C. in which Executive Magistrate declared the possession of the appellants over the said land and in order to save their land, they had the right to private defence.
7. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It is submitted that the defence has neither taken the plea of private defence in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., nor at the time of prosecution evidence.
FINDING
8. As per prosecution case land dispute claimed the life of the father of the informant.
9. Homicidal death of Krishna Mahto is not under challenge and has been proved by the oral evidence of the witnesses.
10. Informant- Sanjay Mahto and his mother Bimla Devi also sustained injury in the same incidence, is also proved by the injury reports which have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits-3 and 3/1. Their injuries are as under: - (A) Injuries on deceased as per Post-Mortem Report: - i) Haematoma present on the vertex of skull (sub-cutaneous layer).
i) Bruises a) 6” x 1” b) 6 “ x 1 ½” over the abdomen (on upper and middle portion) Doctor opined that injury caused by hard and blunt substance.
iii) Abrasion ½” x ½” over left leg on medial side caused by h
