Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 195 (PAT)

Madan Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-11

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2002
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Appellants, Madan Mahto and Ramashish Mahto have been convicted under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Appellant, Ramashish Mahto, has been further convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellants, Ram Pravesh Mahto and Janardan Mahto have been convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.4.1986 the informant, Ram Prit Yadav, at about 5 P.M. had gone to Kohra Bridge to graze his she-buffalo alongwith Vijay Singh and Krishna Yadav. It has further been stated that his she-buffalo went up to the field of one Madan Mahto. Madan Mahto then came and hit the she-buffalow with grass scraper (Khurpi). The informant protested saying that the she-buffalo had not yet entered the onion field of the appellant, and hence the assault upon the she-buffalo was unwarranted. Thereafter the appellant, Madan Mahto became furious and started abusing the informant and thereafter there was a scuffle between them. It has been further alleged that the witnesses, namely, Vijay Singh and Krishna Yadav came there and intervened. Thereafter appellant, Madan Mahto called out his son and ordered to assault. It has been further alleged that the appellant Ramashish Mahto came out of the maize field and fired upon the informant, which hit in his thigh below the waist and the bullet passed out piercing the thigh of the informant. It has been further alleged that the other appellants also came armed with guns and Vijay Singh and Krishna Yadav wanted to lift the informant from the ground and they were subjected to assault with the butt of the guns by appellants Ram Pravesh Mahto and Janardan Mahto. On alarm being raised by the informant his villagers came there and having seen them the appellants fled away. Thereafter the injured informant was carried to his village by the witnesses and from there on a cot he was taken to Hospital for his treatment where his fardbeyan (Ext.1) was recorded. On the basis of his fardbeyan a formal F.I.R was drawn up. After completion of investigations the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Thereafter the injured informant was carried to his village by the witnesses and from there on a cot he was taken to Hospital for his treatment where his fardbeyan (Ext.1) was recorded. On the basis of his fardbeyan a formal F.I.R was drawn up. After completion of investigations the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Thereafter cognizance was taken and finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution is order to prove its case has examined altogether 5 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Krishna Yadav. P.W. 2, Vijay Singh is the nephew of the informant. P.W. 3 is Mahendra Singh. P.W. 4, Ram Prit Yadav, is the informant of this case. P.W. 5, Ashok Kumar, is a formal witness. 5. P.W. 4 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him on the day of occurrence he was grazing his she-buffalo alongwith his nephew Krishna Yadav. His she-buffalow went up to the field of appellant Madan Mahto. Thereafter he came and hit the she-buffalow with grass-scraper (khurpi). He protested upon which the appellant Madan Mahto started abusing him. Thereafter there was a scuffle in between them. He has further stated that he called out his son and ordered for assault. His son Ramashish Mahto came out of the maize field and fired upon the informant which hit in his thigh and the bullet passed out piercing the thigh of the informant. He raised alarm upon which the witnesses came there and having seen the witnesses the appellants fled away. He has further stated that he fell down after shot of gun. According to him when his son and nephew came to save him they were also assaulted with the butt of the gun. Thereafter he was taken to his village and from where he was taken to the Makhdumpur Hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have also corroborated the case of the prosecution. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there are material contradictions about the place of occurrence and genesis of occurrence. He has further submitted that in this case the I.O. and the Dr. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have also corroborated the case of the prosecution. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there are material contradictions about the place of occurrence and genesis of occurrence. He has further submitted that in this case the I.O. and the Dr. have not been examined which has prejudiced the case of the defence. He has further submitted that all the witnesses are interested and no independent witness has been examined. 7. From the evidence of the witnesses it appears that the occurrence took place near the onion field of appellant, Madan Mahto. It is alleged that the appellant, Madan Mahto, gave a Khurpi blow to the she-buffalow of Ram Prit Yadav which was grazing near the onion field. All the four witnesses have supported the fact of genesis of occurrence. According to them there was altercation and scuffle between the appellant and the informant and the appellant, Madan Mahto called out his son who came there with a gun. It has been alleged that the appellant, Madan Mahto, ordered his son to assault the informant, Ram Prit Yadav upon which the son of the informant fired which hit in his right thigh. So far as discrepancy in the place of occurrence is concerned, from the deposition of the witnesses it appears that the informant sustained injury near the onion field of the appellant, Madan Mahto but Krishna Yadav (P.W. 1) son of the informant has stated that his father (informant) was hit near the cabin of Hemlal the place where the informant injured fell down. According to P.W. 1 about 20-25 feet away from the cabin of appellant, Madan Mahto, there was scuffle and when the injured tried to go and went about 15 steps he was fired at by the appellant. As such there is no major discrepancy in the place of occurrence. It is true that the I.O. and the Dr. have not been examined but there are ocular evidences to support the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses are competent witnesses and their evidences are corroborative and consistent. Their testimony is trust inspiring and reliable. 8. On the appreciation of the evidence so adduced, the court below rightly came to the conclusion and convicted the appellants in the aforementioned sections for voluntarily causing injury to the injured with gun and butt of the gun. All the witnesses are competent witnesses and their evidences are corroborative and consistent. Their testimony is trust inspiring and reliable. 8. On the appreciation of the evidence so adduced, the court below rightly came to the conclusion and convicted the appellants in the aforementioned sections for voluntarily causing injury to the injured with gun and butt of the gun. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 9. However, coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1986 i.e. about 16 years ago and there is no criminal antecedent and previous conviction against them. He has further submitted that the appellant, Ramashish Mahto has remained in jail for some time, therefore, it requires consideration on the point of sentence. 10. Having regard to the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the occurrence took place in the year 1986. i.e. 16 years ago and the appellants had gone through mental strain and financial crisis during this prolonged litigation, now it will not be proper to send the appellants again in jail. In my view, if the sentence of appellant, Ramashish Mahto is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and other appellants, namely, Madan Mahto, Ram Pravesh Mahto and Janardan Mahto are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each to be deposited within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, appellant, Ramashish Mahto will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and other appellants, Madan Mahto, Ram Pravesh Mahto and Janardan Mahto will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. It is made clear that the amount of fine, if and when, realised by these appellants the same shall be paid to the informant (P.W. 4) Ram Prit Yadav. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.