Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 361 (JHR)

Arjun Mahra v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2005-05-11

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. These two appellants were found guilty for committing the offence under Sections 304, Part 11/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of ten years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar by judgment dated 26th August, 1991. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.9.1985 at about 8 a.m. the She Goats of the appellants were grazing the paddy crop in the field of the deceased, Moti Mahra, and therefore were driven out. In the evening, the deceased Moti Mahra went in the village in order to collect the co-villagers for lodging complaint against the accused persons to the effect that they often allow their She Goats to graze his paddy fields. While the deceased was returning towards his house, it is said that the appellants surrounded him and started assaulting him in the lane near the house of the deceased, Moti Mahra. The occurrence is said to have witnesses by Mohan Mahra, Baldeo Mahra and others, it is said that the appellants assaulted the deceased, Moti Mahra with lathi on his head as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious on the ground. Thereafter the deceased was taken to his house and on the next date he was taken to the Hospital for his treatment but he succumbed to the injuries. 2. In all eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them PW 7 and PW 8 were the formal witnesses, PW 1. PW 4 are the full brothers of the deceased, PW 2 is the widow of the deceased and PW 5 and PW 6 are two others eye-witnesses to the occurrence, PW 3 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. 3. PW 1, Bahadur Mahara, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, has specifically stated that the appellant No. 1, Arjun Mahra assaulted the deceased, Moti Mahara on his head by means of lathi due to which he fell down and thereafter the appellant No. 2, Dwarika Mahara assaulted him by means of lathi and fists and slaps. 4. PW 2, Shanti Mahrine, is the widow of the deceased, who is also an eye- witness to the occurrence. She has given vivid description of the occurrence and has fully corroborated the statements of the PW 1, Bahadur Mahra. 4. PW 2, Shanti Mahrine, is the widow of the deceased, who is also an eye- witness to the occurrence. She has given vivid description of the occurrence and has fully corroborated the statements of the PW 1, Bahadur Mahra. PW 4, Ghhawi Mahra and PW 5, Baldeo Mahra, who are the other eyewitnesses, have also fully corroborated the statement of PW 1 and PW 2. No doubt there are some contradictions here and there in the statements of the prosecution witness, but that do not affect their veracity and truthfulness. The post-mortem report (Ext. 1) as well as statement of the Doctor, is fully inconformity with the statement of the eye-witnesses discussed above. 5. Therefore there appears no reason to disbelieve the statement of eye- witnesses as well as the evidence of the Doctor and as such, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted these two appellants for committing the offence under Sections 304, Part 11/34, IPC, holding that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against them beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. So far as question of sentence is concerned, it appears that the appellants were awarded RI for a period of ten years. Considering the date of occurrence, which is of the year 1985 and the time taken in conclusion of the trial, which was concluded in the year 1991, it appears that the appellants have undergone the ordeal of the protracted trial for about five years and they have remained in custody for 2 years and 2-1/2 months and further that this appeal has remained pending for about 14 years, therefore, in my view it would be harsh to send the appellants to jail again. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial Court are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. This would certainly meet the ends of justice. 7. Hence, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence as aforesaid. The appellants who are on bail are discharged from the liability of their ball bonds. Appeal dismissed with modification.