Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 99 (PAT)

Mannu Lal Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-22

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

body2004
Judgment Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 515 of 1987 by the Sessions Judge. West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted both the accused appellants under section 307 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 25000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I for one year each. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that Nagina Sah, Harihar Mahto and others keep their Kahlihan, on the Gairmazarua Aam land. For sometime accused Mannu Lal Mahto is living on that Gairmazarua Aam land with his family. Earlier also Mannu Lal had wanted to capture that land for which panchayati, had been held. Now again Mannu Lal was trying to capture that land by putting hut. On the day of occurrence a panchayati was being held for that near a well. During panchayati Mannu Lal told that he would not abide by the decision of the panchayati and he would construct house on it and there was an altercation and Mannu Lal started abusing them. Mannu Lal started filing from his licensed gun on the informant and others. Shambhu Mahto brought a country made gun from his house and gave it to the wife of Mannu Mahto and she made four firings from it. Ramanand Mahto, who is brother of Mannu Lal Mahto, chased the informant and others with lathi to assault them. By the firings made by Mannu Lal and his wife, informant and others were injured. The informant lodged the FIR and after investigation police submitted charge sheet in the case. 3. The defence of the accused persons, according to the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, is that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. It was submitted by the learned lawyer for the appellants that there is discrepancy in place of occurrence and manner of occurrence in the evidence of the prosecution and the witnesses have made contradictory statements. 5. In this case 16 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and one witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 6. 5. In this case 16 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and one witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 6. PW 9 Bhikhari Mahto, PW 12 Baijnath Baitha and PW 13 Nagina Sah have been tendered by the prosecution . PW 10 is Elaichi Kumari aged about ten years. According to her, she had gone to Khalihan on hearing the sound of firing and she had seen that Mannu Lal was assaulting people by gun and she had also sustained gun injury. She has stated that she had gone to hospital and the doctor had examined her injuries. PW 1 Nagina Mahto, PW 3 Rajendra Baitha. PW 4 Mahanth Mahto, PW 7 Gauri Mahto, PW 10 Elaichi Kumari and PW 15 Jhakhkhar Mahto were injured in the occurrence. PW 1 Nagina Mahto has stated that people were asking Mannu Lal not to construct house in Gairmazarua Aam land and Mannu Lal did not agree. According to him, Mannu Lal started abusing them and he fired from his gun and due to firing he and eight others were injured. He has stated that Mannu Lal was firing from his licensed gun and his wife Panna Devi was firing from country made gun and Shambhu Mahto had given the country made gun to her. He has further stated that Ramanand was assaulting the villagers by lathi. He has also said that Mannu Lal had made six firings and Panna Devi had made four firings. PW 3 Rajendra Baitha has stated that a panchayati, was being held on the well. According to him the accused was constructing house on the land and he did not agree to the decision of the punches, and he started abusing the people and fired from his gun, as a result of which nine persons were injured. Shambhu had given county made gun to the wife of Mannu Lal. who made four firings. PW 4 Mahanth Mahto has stated that he was in panchayali. on the well and Mannu Lal was saying that he would construct house in the Khalihan. and the villagers were protesting. According to him, Mannu Lal did not agree to them and went out of panchayati, and came with gun and made 6-7 firings and nine persons were injured. He has said that Panna Devi had also made firings and Ramanand was moving lathi. and the villagers were protesting. According to him, Mannu Lal did not agree to them and went out of panchayati, and came with gun and made 6-7 firings and nine persons were injured. He has said that Panna Devi had also made firings and Ramanand was moving lathi. He has said that this is the only land in the village where people of village put their Khalihan. He had sustained injury in his thigh by gun fire and Shambhu had given gun to Panna Devi. PW 5 is Ramdhari Mahto. According to him. Mannu Lal wanted to construct house and people of village wanted to keep Khalihan, and Mannu Lal went to Khalihan, leaving panchayali. Thereafter, Mannu Lal fired gun and ten persons had sustained gun shot injuries and his wife had also fired country made gun. PW 7 is Gauri Mahto. According to him also a panchayati. was being held between the villagers and Mannu Lal regarding Kalihan, and Mannu Lal did not agree to panchayati and started firing and his wife also fired and due to firing of Mannu Lal 8-9 persons were injured and he had sustained injuries in his thigh and below knee and in the right leg due to firing of Mannu Lal. According to him, he had gone to the hospital and pillet is still in his body. PW 11 is Babulal Mahto. He has stated that the panches, had asked Mannu Lal not to construct house and Mannu Lal did not agree to panchayati. and started abusing people and thereafter he made firing causing injury to ten persons and his wife had also fired. PW 15 is Jhakhkhar Mahto, the informant of this case. He has stated that there is eight kathes, of Beren Gairmazarua land in his village. According to him Khalihan are kept in that land and marriage party also stays there and the accused wanted to construct house on that land and the villagers wanted that land should remain vacant. Further according to him, a panchayati, was being held in respect of that land on the well between the accused and the villagers. panches had asked Mannu Lal not to construct house on that land but Mannu Lal did not agree to panches, and insisted on constructing house. Further according to him, a panchayati, was being held in respect of that land on the well between the accused and the villagers. panches had asked Mannu Lal not to construct house on that land but Mannu Lal did not agree to panches, and insisted on constructing house. Mannu Lal came with gun and accused Ramanand and Shambhu came with danta, and Shambhu gave a country made gun to Panna Devi. Mannu Lal fired gun and he (PW 15) and eight others were injured. He has stated that Panna Devi had also fired from gun. PW 16 is Dr. Nurul Hoda. He has stated that on 5.2.1987, he was posted as Medical Officer at M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah. According to him on that day he had examined Gokul Baitha, Bhikhari, Ramdhani Mahto, Gauri Mahto, Rajendra Baitha, Jhakhkhar Mahto, Mahanath Mahto, Nagina Mahto and Elaichi and found injures on their person, which were simple in nature and caused by gun shot pillets. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of the Medical Officer PW 16 supports the evidence of PWs. 1,3,4,5,7,10 and PW 15 the informant of this case and the case of the prosecution. 7 PW 2 is Sheolal Mahto. PW 6 Gokhul Baitha had been first tendered by the prosecution on 5.9.1988, and then he had been examined as PW 8 on behalf of the prosecution and PW 14 Ramadhar Pandey is the I.O. of the case. He (PW 14) has stated that on 5.2.1987, he was posted as officer- in-charge of Baria P.S. and on that day at 2 Oclock in the day the informant Jhakhkhar Mahto had come to the P.S. in injured condition and other injured persons were also with him. He had drawn FIR on the basis of statement of Jhakhkhar Mahto. He had visited the place of occurrence. In his statement on recall by the accused, he has stated that accused Mannu Lal was caught at the P.O. and was handed over to the police. The evidence of PW 14 supports the prosecution case. PW 6 Gokul Baitha was tendered by the prosecution on 5.9.1988 and again he was examined as a witness by the prosecution on 22.9.1988, as PW 8. The evidence of PW 14 supports the prosecution case. PW 6 Gokul Baitha was tendered by the prosecution on 5.9.1988 and again he was examined as a witness by the prosecution on 22.9.1988, as PW 8. PW 8 has stated that accused Mannu Lal did not agree to the panchayati, and thereafter he started abusing and firing from the gun as a result of which nine persons were injured. According to him wife of Mannu Lal had also fired gun and Ramanand and Shambhu were moving lathi, and he (PW 8) had also sustained injury and he was treated in the hospital. He has stated that people had caught Mannu Lal with gun and handed over him with gun to Daroga. PWs. 1,4,7,10 and 15 are injured witnesses and so hey are natural witnesses to the occurrence. There is nothing in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. 8. DW 1 is Umesh Prasad, an Advocates clerk. He is witness of formal nature. He has proved Exts. C and D. Ext. C is fardbeyan, of Bhola Mahto and ext. D is the formal FIR drawn on the basis of fardheyan, of Bhola Mahto, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 379, IPC. DW 1 Umesh Prasad has said in his cross-examination that fardbeyan, or FIR was not written before him and he has no knowledge of its contents. PW 16 Dr. Nurul Hoda had been recalled by defence for evidence and on recall he has stated that on 5.2.1987, he had examined Bhola Mahto. According to him, he had found two injuries on the person of Bhola Mahto. According to him he had also found injuries on Kamla Prasad and Mannu Lal. Exts. B, B-1 and B-2 are the injury reports of Bhola Mahto, Kamla Prasad and Mannu Lal. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it cannot be inferred from the evidence of the defence that the accused-appellants have not committed the offence as alleged. 10. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused-appellants have committed the offence as alleged. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no merit in this Criminal Appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. 10. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused-appellants have committed the offence as alleged. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no merit in this Criminal Appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. The bail of the accused appellants Mannu Lal Mahto and Panna Devi is cancelled. They are directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith to serve out their sentences. The learned Sessions Judge will also take all necessary steps in this regard.