Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1895 (JHR)

Fagu Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. No one appears for the petitioners. 2. Lower court record has been received pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2017. Since the prosecution was initiated about two decades back, this application is being disposed of. 3. This application is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.01.2015 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court (Rape Case), Deoghar, in G.R. Case No. 37 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner No. 1 has been convicted for the offence u/s 379 I.P.C. and the petitioner No. 2 has been convicted u/s 341/323 I.P.C. and both have been released after furnishing a bond to the effect that they shall maintain peace and good behavior for a period of one year. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 20.01.1998 at about 6 a.m. to 6.30 a.m., the accused persons attempted to close the exit of the house of the informant and when the informant resisted, the accused persons started assaulting him by Lathi. Petitioner No. 2 had given a Lathi blow on the head of the informant and when Gulo Mahto came forward to save the informant, Kamal Mahto gave Lathi blow over his forehead. It has also been alleged that the accused Fagu Mahto snatched wrist watch worth Rs. 700/-of the informant and Laljee Mahto also assaulted Binod Mahto, uncle of the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Jasidih P.S. case No. 09 of 1998 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken against the accused persons for the offence u/s 341,323,427,504 and 34 I.P.C. and the case record was made over to the learned Judicial Magistrate for trial and disposal. During course of trial the learned Magistrate had observed that a case u/s 379 I.P.C. is made out against petitioner No. 1, Fagu Mahto. Subsequently charge u/s 341, 323, 427, 504 I.PC. against all the accused persons were framed and the charge u/s 379 I.P.C. was also framed against the accused Fagu Mahto. 5. Although eight witnesses were named in the charge-sheet, but in course of trial only six witnesses were produced. P.W. 5 Madan Prasad @ Hira Lal Yadav is the informant who has stated that the petitioner No. 1 assaulted him. 5. Although eight witnesses were named in the charge-sheet, but in course of trial only six witnesses were produced. P.W. 5 Madan Prasad @ Hira Lal Yadav is the informant who has stated that the petitioner No. 1 assaulted him. He has further stated that when Gulo Mahto had tried to save him, Kamal Mahto also gave a Lathi blow and caused head injury. He has further stated that petitioner No. 1 snatched his wrist watch worth Rs. 700/-. P.W. 2 Paltan Mirdha, P.W. 3 Nago Lal and P.W. 4 Mahendra Raut have supported the prosecution case. So far as the P.W. 1 Niranjan Deo is concerned, he is said to be eye witness to the occurrence who had also supported the incident as well as snatching of wrist watch from the possession of the informant. P.W. 6 Dr. Sudhir Prasad who had examined Gulo Mahto as well as the informant had found injuries on the forehead of Golo Mahto as well as on the informant and both the injuries report were proved and exhibited as Ext. 2 and 2/1. 6. Since Gulo Mahto had not been examined, the learned trial court had acquitted Kamal Maho for the offence alleged against him. So far as the petitioners are concerned they were said to have given Lathi blow on the head of the informant as well as snatched wrist watch of the informant. The petitioner No. 1 has been convicted for the offence u/s 379 I.P.C. and the petitioner No. 2 has been convicted for the offence u/s 341 and 323 I.P.C. and were acquitted with respect to the other offences. There being consistent evidence on record with respect to the assault committed by the petitioners which has been duly supported by the injury report and the oral evidence with respect to the snatching of writs watch from the informant, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence, as indicated above. 7. In view of the fact that the trial was pending for last 16-17 years, the petitioners were released after furnishing a bond to the effect that they shall maintain peace and good behavior for a period of one year and they shall appear before the court when they called upon by the court under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 8. 8. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.