Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 226 (PAT)

Ram Bilash Paswan v. State of Bihar

2008-02-01

body2008
S. K. SHARMA, J.:- The above named appellants filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.8.1992 and 1.9.1992 respectively passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1982 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences under sections 452 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. They were further convicted for the offence under sections 323/324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Appellants Kokil Paswan (now dead), Mahendra Mahton and Prabhu Mahton were also convicted under section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Appellants Ram Bilash Paswan, Ramji Mahton (now dead), Nepo Mahton, Chandar Mahton, Jhingur Mahton @ Jhinga Mahto, Ramashish Mahton, Nunulal Mahton, Shankar Mahton, Sheo Nandan Mahton, Sikandar Mahto were further convicted under section 148 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. one year. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Fardbeyan was recorded on the statement of Jaidev Mahton (PW 8) at Sadar Hospital Begusarai on 11.11.1980 at 10.30 AM by the Officer-in-Charge Altaf Ali (PW 10). According to the allegation, 16 dhurs of land appertaining to khata no. 217 plot no. 597 situated at village Bisunpur Bahor within Begusarai Police Station was purchased by the informant from Acchay Sah (not examined) for consideration of Rs 2,000/-. The informant was living on that land for which Acchay Sah had agreed to execute a sale dead in the name of the informant. In the meanwhile on 10.11.1980 appellant Prabhu Mahton brought a registered deed of sale executed in his favour for consideration of Rs. 5,000/- from Acchay Sah. At about 7.30 M on 11.11.1980 16 accused persons variously armed with lathi, Bhala, Farsa and pistol came upon the informant's house. Appellant Prabhu Mahton ordered the informant to leave the land and remove his cattle's head as the land was purchased by him. When the informant refused then at the behest of Prabhu Mahton Kokil Paswan (died) assaulted the informant with Bhala on his head. Remaining accused persons entered into the house and assaulted the informant's brother Ganesh Mahton (PW 6), his wife Mona Devi (PW 7). Accused Ram Bilash Mahton, Sikandar Mahto fired but caused no injury. All the accused persons thereafter, took away the informant's cattle, paddy grains and other articles. Remaining accused persons entered into the house and assaulted the informant's brother Ganesh Mahton (PW 6), his wife Mona Devi (PW 7). Accused Ram Bilash Mahton, Sikandar Mahto fired but caused no injury. All the accused persons thereafter, took away the informant's cattle, paddy grains and other articles. On account of assault the informant sustained injuries on his head and hands. His on Raj Kumar Mahton (PW 4) sustained Farsa injury on his left arm. Mona Devi, Ganesh Mahton and Hareram Mahton also sustained injuries on their head, hands and legs. Sikander Choudhary and others were witnesses the occurrence. 3. The injured and informant were brought to hospital were the fardbeyan was recorded and case was registered. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. 4. Plea of the defence was that they have been implicated on account of land dispute. Ram Anugrah Mahto and his brother Nagan and Banwari were the recorded raiyats of the disputed land and all of them died issueless leaving behind youngest brother Ghaili Mahto. Ghaili Mahto died leaving behind his wife and two sons. They sold the land to Rambati Devi and again to Acchay Lal Sah from whom the appellant Prabhu Mahton purchased the land. 5. Charge-sheet was submitted against 16 persons, two of them namely, Dineshwar Mahto and Brahmdeo Mahto died so trial concluded only against 14 persons. At the appellate stage also two persons Ramjee Mahto and Kokil Paswan died so their name have been expunged vide order dated 13.7.2007. 6. In order to prove the case prosecution has examined 11 witnesses they are PW 1 Sahdev Mahto, PW 2 Tarni Singh, PW 3 Arun Kumar Singh, PW4 Raj Kumar Mahto, PW 5 Hareram Mahto, PW 6 Ganesh Mahto, PW 7 Mona Devi, PW 8 the informant Jaidev Mahto, PW 9 Dr. R.R. Prasad, PW 10 Altaf Ali Khan the I.O. and PW 11 Mathura Prasad. PWs 2, 3 and 11 were the formal witnesses. PW 7 is the wife of the informant PW 8. PW 4 is the son of the informant. 7. The defence has also examined 6 witnesses. They are DW 1 Radhe Shyam Prasad, DW 2 is also Radhey Shyam Prasad, DW 3 Dwaria Mahto and DW 4 Mahendra Sah. The defence witnesses have proved the sale deed and other documents. 8. PW 4 is the son of the informant. 7. The defence has also examined 6 witnesses. They are DW 1 Radhe Shyam Prasad, DW 2 is also Radhey Shyam Prasad, DW 3 Dwaria Mahto and DW 4 Mahendra Sah. The defence witnesses have proved the sale deed and other documents. 8. Six substantial witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove its case. Out of them PWs 1, 6 and 8 are the full brothers. PWs 4 and 5 were the sons of the informant whereas the PW 7 is the wife of the wife of the informant PW 8. The disputed land measures 16 dhurs belonging to plot no. 597 and khata no. 217. According to the informant PW 8 para 12. 9. No doubt the factum of assault has been supported by the witnesses but the informant's case himself is that the disputed land was purchase by him for sum of Rs. 2,000/- from Acchay Lal Sah who promised to execute Kewala. But that Kewala was never executed rather it was executed in favour of one of the appellant for consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The disputed place of occurrence is the plot which was purchased by the appellant. It was earlier agreed to be given to the informant. In that background the evidences are to be scrutinized. 10. It has come during evidence that Ram Anugrah Mahto and his two brothers Nagam and Banwari were the recorded raiyats in respect of plot no. 597 who died issueless leaving behind their youngest brother Ghaili Mahto and his name was not recorded in the survey records of right. Said Ghaili Mahto died leaving behind his wife Badamiya Devi and two sons Bhola Mahto and Mahadev Mahto who sold the land to Rambati Devi wife of Lakhan Mahto. This Rambati Devi subsequently sold the land to Acchay Lal Sah who sold it to the appellant Prabhu Mahto. Khatiyans were there in the name of Anugrah Mahto and his two brothers Nagam and Banwari Mahton. 11. The informant and injured witnesses PWs 4, 5 and 7 have supported that the appellant came over the land and committed indiscriminate assault as a result of which those persons received injuries. The doctor PW 9 has stated that the injured were brought to the hospital for treatment and he has treated them. 11. The informant and injured witnesses PWs 4, 5 and 7 have supported that the appellant came over the land and committed indiscriminate assault as a result of which those persons received injuries. The doctor PW 9 has stated that the injured were brought to the hospital for treatment and he has treated them. According to one of the witness PW 4 Prabhu Mahton has given a Bhala blow to Hareram Mahton doctor's evidence disbelieved that. PW 6 in para 2 supports that Prabhu and Kokil gave blow on Jaidev Mahton but such injuries was not found. PW 7 is the alleged injured wife of the informant and according to her she was assaulted by Bhala by Prabhu Mahton. Medical report does not supports it. These are the vital contradictions in the prosecution case. If the entire case taken in its entirety then it appears that the place of occurrence was the land belongs to the appellant Prabhu Mahton. The informant could not make out the case that they were the owner of the land by virtue of any transactions either oral or documentary. The informant has made it a case that it was purchased by oral agreement but the person who allegedly gave it to the informant orally have not been examined rather all the documents are in favour of the appellant. 12. It appears from the materials available on the record the appellants were the bona fide owners of the land to which the informant had no right or title at all. He had nothing to do with the land and his going over the land was unjustified. Not only that with regard to assault also the witnesses have given different versions and contradictory to each other on the manner of occurrence. The doctor's report also does not corroborate the prosecution version. So, I am of the view that the informant has not come with true version of the occurrence. He suppressed the material facts. None-examination of Acchay Lal Sah has created doubt on the prosecution version. 13. In the result I hold that the prosecution has not able to prove its charge beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.