Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 71 (JHR)

Brinda Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-12

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal arises out of judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 13.1.1998 and 15.01.1998 respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, In Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1995 whereby both the appellants have been held guilty for commission of offences under Section 302/148 and 149, IPC and accordingly convicted under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Ram Mohan Mahato (PW 3) informed the Police on 1.7.1995 that on the previous day when he along with his uncle Charka Mahto alias Baliram Mahato (deceased) was returning from Rath Mela, Brinda Mahto (appellant No.1) having a 'balua', (a sharp cutting weapon), in his hand, came running from behind and assaulted the informant, which resulted in cut injuries in the three fingers of his right hand. Thereafter, Alam Mahto (appellant No.2) came with a 'balua' whereupon the deceased assaulted him with an iron rod which caused him some injuries on which "Alam Mahto snatched the rod from the deceased. Thereafter, Brinda Mahto and the other co-accused assaulted the deceased with balua lathi and tangi due to which the deceased fell down on the ground and died. Alam Mahto inserted the pointed portion of the iron rod near the ear of the deceased. The motive of the occurrence as per the FIR is that in the year 1990, at the time of 'Holi', there was a quarrel between the parties in which the uncle and aunt of the informant as well as one Brinda Mahato were killed by the accused party. In that case, on the basis of the' evidence of the deceased and others, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, appellants Brtnda Mahato and Alam Mahato were released, being juvenile. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant PW 3, Bharno PS Case No. 64 of 1995 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid. 4. Mr. Yogesh Modi. learned counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid. 4. Mr. Yogesh Modi. learned counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. There are vital contradictions in the narration of the incident by the informant (PW 31 in the FIR and his deposition. In the FIR presence of Ganga Mahato (PW 1) and Jagdeo Mahato (PW 2) was not mentioned though they stated that they were at a close distance of about 1-2 yards behind the informant and the deceased. He further submitted that through in the FIR the allegation against the appellant No. 2 was that after the death of the deceased he had pierced the pointed portion of the iron rod near the ear of the deceased, but the informant has subsequently changed the story in course of his deposition in Court. He further submitted that PW 1 - Ganga Mahato and PW 2, Jagdeo Mahato who have been projected as eye witnesses are not the eye witnesses. He also submitted no independent witness was examined in the case to corroborate the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses PW s 1, 2 & 3. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that from the FIR it cannot be gathered that the appellant Alam Mahato inserted or pierced the pointed portion of the rod after the death of the deceased only because such narration was mentioned next to the narration of the death. He further submitted that the FIR is not an encyclopaedia in which names of Pws 1 and 2 should have been mentioned. He lastly submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. 6. It is true that in the FIR after the narration of the incident regarding the death of the deceased, it was mentioned that the appellant Alam Mahato inserted the pointed side of the iron rod near his right ear but on going through the entire materials on record, specially the evidence •of the informant PW 3, it appears that he (the informant) had narrated about the injury inflicted by the appellant Alam in the FIR and in his deposition. There is nothing to suggest that Alam inserted iron rod after death of the deceased. Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad (PW 4) who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased also found such injuries apart from several incised injuries on vital parts of the dead body. 7. PW 3 the informant is the injured eye witness. His Injuries have been proved by the doctor-PW 4. He (PW 3) sustained cut injuries on three of his fingers, Though the evidence of PW s 1 and 2 is consistent with the prosecution case, but even if the evidence of PW 1 and 2 is kept aside for the sake of arguments, the evidence of PW 3 read with other materials available on the record is sufficient to confirm the order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the trial Court. There is no reason to disbelieve or discredit the evidence of Pws 1, 2, 3 and PW 4 - the doctor. 8. The order of conviction of the appellants has been passed under Section 148, 149 and 302. IPC, In our opinion the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. 9. After carefully going through the materials on record, In our opinion the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1996. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby affirmed. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed. We may note here that the appellant No. 1 Brlnda Mahato has been released from Jail after serving out the sentence though Appellant No. 2 Alan1 Mahto could not be released as he is said to be involved in another case also. Appeal dismissed.