Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1050 (PAT)

Ram Bilas Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2001-11-26

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2001
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. .The sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.2.89 at 7.30 p.m. appellant Ram Bilash Mahto called the injured Julmi Mahto who went to him. The informant stated that after sometime she heard hulla where upon she along with her husband ran and reached at the darwqja of the appellant where she found that her father-in-law, Julmi Mahto was lying in an injured condition. she continued to say in her fardbeyan that Singheshwar Kapar (PW 1) Lulahi Kapar (PW 2) and many others whose names she did not know, told her that Ram Bilash Mahto had assaulted Julmi Mahto on his neck with Tarchedi Hasua and that those persons did also tell her that the accused Ram Bilash Mahto had demanded from Julmi Mahto document relating to field but Julmi Mahto told to give the same tomorrow whereupon quarrel took place between them. The informant further stated that her husband had taken the injured to Samastipur hospital. On the basis of fardbeyan formal FIR (Ext. 1) was recorded at Ujiarpur PS and investigation started and after completion of the same charge-sheet under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 11 witnesses. PWs 2, 7, 8 and 11 are formal witnesses. PW 1 is Singheshwar Kapar. PW 3 is Lulhai Kapar, they claimed to be eye-witnesses of the case. PW 4 is Shankar Mahto, PW 5 is Julmi Mahto. the injured, PW 6 is Nilam Devi (informant), PW 9 is Dr. Ram Lawlin Pd. and PW 10 is Haidar Ali, I.O. 4. PWs 2, 7, 8 and 11 are formal witnesses. PW 1 is Singheshwar Kapar. PW 3 is Lulhai Kapar, they claimed to be eye-witnesses of the case. PW 4 is Shankar Mahto, PW 5 is Julmi Mahto. the injured, PW 6 is Nilam Devi (informant), PW 9 is Dr. Ram Lawlin Pd. and PW 10 is Haidar Ali, I.O. 4. PW 1 has stated that on the date of occurrence at 7.30 p.m. while he was at the house of Sundrashwar Mahto situated at a distance of five Laggis he heard hulla and then he came to the house of appellant where he saw that quarrel was going on between the appellant and injured, Julmi Mahto and in that quarrel appellant carrying Tarchedi Hansua had overpowered Julmi Mahto and he assaulted three four times with Hansua on the neck of Julmi Mahto. He has stated that Julmi Mahto caught hold of Hansua in defence due to which his fingers got cut injury. PWs 3 and 4 have also supported the version of PW 1. PW 5 the injured Julmi Mahto has stated that at about 7.30 p.m. the appellants daughter came to him and told him that her father was calling him and he went to the darwaja of accused Ram Bilash. According to him, the accused demanded the document relating to land on which he told that he would not give the same at that time and he will give it tomorrow. Upon this, the appellant assaulted him with Tarchedi Hasuan on his neck. According to him, he fell down having received injury on his neck and when tried to resist, his three fingers of the left hand also got cut injury. When the witnesses came, the appellant fled away. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital where he was treated. PW 6 the informant has stated that on hulla she alongwith her husband PW 1 ran to the place of occurrence and saw the injured in wounded condition and she learnt from the witnesses Lulhai Kapar and Singheshwar about the assault accused at the hands of the appellant Ram Bilash. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution, as narrated in the First Information Report. PW 9, Dr. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution, as narrated in the First Information Report. PW 9, Dr. Ram Lawlin Prasad examined the injured Julmi Mahto on 26.2.1989 in his private clinic at Samastipur and found the following injury on his person : (i) An incised wound size 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" semi lunar in shape on the palmer aspect of ring finger left hand middle phealange, (ii) An incised wound 1 and half inch x 1/4" x 1/4" semi lunar in shape on the palmer aspect of middle fingers left hand middle phealange, (iii) An incised wound size one and 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" semi lunar in shape on the ventro later aspect of the junction of distal and middle phealange of left index finger. (iv) An incised wound three in number each 3 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" in diameter conjoining on the angle of mouth of right side cheek. (v) An abrasion size 2" x 1 /4" x skin deep on the back of the neck. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were simple in nature. 5. PW 10, I.O. has stated that he visited the place of occurrence and PW 3 stated before him that the appellant had assaulted the injured Julmi Mahto with Tarchedi Hasuan on his back portion of the neck. He also found injured in wounded condition. According to him, the injured stated before him that the appellant assaulted him with Tarchedi Hasuan, he has stated that he did not find blood stains at the place of occurrence. He also recorded fardbeyan of the informant and other witnesses. 6. From the evidence of the witnesses PWs 1, 3, 5 and 6 it is crystal clear that the appellant assaulted the injured by Tarchedi Hasuan on his neck which also caused cut injury on his three fingers of the injured. The doctor has also supported that case of the prosecution. According to him, he found three incised wound 1" on each of the three fingers. The doctor has also found three cut injuries on the right cheek and abrasion of the size of 2" x 1-1/4" x skin deep on the back of the neck. As such. the prosecution has proved the case that the appellant assaulted the injured on his neck and his three fingers: index. middle and ring had become disabled to work. The doctor has also found three cut injuries on the right cheek and abrasion of the size of 2" x 1-1/4" x skin deep on the back of the neck. As such. the prosecution has proved the case that the appellant assaulted the injured on his neck and his three fingers: index. middle and ring had become disabled to work. Therefore, the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. 7. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1989 and both the appellant and injured are full brothers. The appellant had no intention to assault the injured. Since there was altercation between them, the occurrencetook place within a spur of moment. It has been also submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about one and half years. Therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the appellant. 8. Having regard to the submission and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. 400/- to be deposited by the appellant within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and in default. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is made clear that the amount of fine, if and when realised from the appellant, shall be paid to the injured, Julmi Mahto (PW 5) with the aforesaid modification in sentence this appeal is dismissed.