Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1586 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Jyoti Mahto

2012-11-27

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Through this Government Appeal judgment dated 1.5.1990 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Appeal No. 66 of 1988 setting aside judgment dated 8.6.1988 passed in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 1987 by learned 2nd 2. Asstt. Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur has been challenged. The appellate court has acquitted Jyoti Mahto, Chandeshwar Mahto, Mahesh Mahto, Tulsi Mahto, Ram Pravesh Mahto, Ram Uchit Mahto, Baijnath Mahto, Ram Chandra Mahto, Lal Bihari Mahto, Ram Briksh Mahto, Sitaram Mahto, Yogendra Mahto, Ram Ekbal Mahto, and Horil Mahto charged under Sections 323, 325, 147, 307, 307/149, 148, 324 IPC. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the accused persons but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is present and has placed his submission. 3. A land dispute was existing between the informant Rajgir Mahto on one side and accused persons on another side, all residents of village and P.S. Rajapakar, district Vaishali at Hajipur. At 6.30 a.m. on 2.7.1986 the informant after easing as soon as he reached near the well of Budhu Mahto, then Baijnath Mahto challenged and asked him to stop. Thereafter, accused Ram Uchit Mahto, Lal Bihari Mahto and Baijnath Mahto caught hold of the informant and ordered for killing. Remaining accused persons came out of a hut situated by the side of place of occurrence having traditional weapons i.e. lathi, bhala and garasa. They indiscriminately assaulted him by means of said weapons. On alarm being raised by him, his family members came, protested and tried to save the informant but they also received assault by the accused persons. Informant’s uncle received severe injuries. Later on, villagers assembled and rescued the family members of the informant. The informant rushed to Rajapakar police station and gave fard beyan at 7 a.m. The injured was taken to Primary Health Centre where they were medically treated. The case was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted. At the stage of trial, the charges were explained to the accused to which they denied and pleaded innocence and so the trial proceeded. 4. The informant rushed to Rajapakar police station and gave fard beyan at 7 a.m. The injured was taken to Primary Health Centre where they were medically treated. The case was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted. At the stage of trial, the charges were explained to the accused to which they denied and pleaded innocence and so the trial proceeded. 4. In order to prove its charge, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses, namely, P.W. 1, Rajeshwar Mahto, P.W. 2 Ballam Mahto, P. W. 3 Antu Mahto, P. W. 4 Bisheshwar Mahto, P. W. 5 Jageshwar Mahto, P. W. 6 Asrafi Mahto, P.W. 7 Akli Devi, P. W. 8 Thakur Ram Naresh Singh, P. W. 9 Rajgir Mahto, P. W. 10 Baijnath Mahto, P. W. 11 Guljar Mahto, P. W. 12 Dilip Kumar Singh, P.W. 13 Nand Kishore Rai, P. W. 14 Bindeshwari Devi and P. W. 15 Nand Kishore Singh. The defence has also examined two witnesses, namely, D. W. 1 Bhagwan Prasad Verma and D. W. 2 Amarnath Verma. P. W. 1 is the brother of the informant and was an injured witness. P. Ws. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9 (informant) were material witnesses. P.Ws. 11 and 12 were also injured witnesses. They deposed and the appellate court after considering the evidence against the accused persons ordered the acquittal of the accused which is under challenge. 5. The case of the appellant is that the injured witnesses have been thoroughly relied upon and there was no valid ground for disbelieving them. But from the discussion made in the judgment it is apparent that a number of absurdities were found in the prosecution version. Investigating Officer (P.W. 15) has stated that he recovered weapons having blood stains concealed in the stack of kanda kept South of the hut of the accused Jyoti Mahto, but neither these weapons were produced before the Court nor they were sent for chemical examination. There is no explanation as to why those weapons were not sent for chemical examination. The appellate court has found that the prosecution witnesses were relating to each other and independent witnesses were withheld. The appellate court has also found that the no specific role has been attributed to the accused either in the FIR or in the statement of the prosecution witnesses before the police. The appellate court has found that the prosecution witnesses were relating to each other and independent witnesses were withheld. The appellate court has also found that the no specific role has been attributed to the accused either in the FIR or in the statement of the prosecution witnesses before the police. The appellate court has also found that there is no such contradiction in the evidence of related or interested witnesses which goes to the very root of the prosecution story. The appellate court found that these lacunaes have affected the totality of the prosecution version. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances and after scrutinizing the record, we find that the reasoning given for acquittal is sound and it requires no interference by this Court. 7. In the result, this Government Appeal being without merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.