Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.127 of 1988 =========================================================== 1. Jai Narain Mahto, son of Ram Prasad Mahto. 2. Sudarshan Mahto, son of Sri Bhawan Mahto. 3. Shyam Lal Mahto, son of Ram Briksh Mahto. All residents of village-Bajen, Police Station-Charpokhari, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 199 of 1988 =========================================================== Amir Chand Mahto, son of Ram Prasad Mahto, resident of village-Bajen, Police Station-Charpokhari, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance: (In CR. APP (DB) No. 127 of 1988) For the Appellants : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Imran, Adv. Mr. Nagma Shamim, Adv. Mr. Rahul Nath, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar For the State : Mr. Shasi Bala Verma, A.P.P. (In CR. APP (DB) No. 199 of 1988) For the Appellants : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Imran, Adv. Mr. Nagma Shamim, Adv. Mr. Rahul Nath, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar For the State : Mr. Shasi Bala Verma, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) Date: 22-11-2012 1. Both these two appeals arise out against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8th March, 1988 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in connection with Sessions Trial 2 No.146 of 1980 whereby and whereunder appellant Amirhand Mahto has been found guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] as well as 27 of the Arms Act while the remaining appellants, namely, Jainarain Mahto, Shyamlal Mahto and Sudarshan Mahto have been found guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act and all of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under [STATUTE] as also one year R.I. each for offences punishable under Section 148 as well as 27 of the Arms Act respectively, which have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Kalika Singh, PW-5 had given his fardbeyan (Exhibit-2) on 02.10.1979 at about 10 AM at village-Bajen before the Officer-in- charge, Charpokhari Police Station stating inter alia that on the same day at about 07:00 A.M. his father Baleshwar Singh since deceased Lakshuman Singh, Tapeshwar Singh, Raj Kumar Singh, including himself were engaged in conversation relating to agricultural work while sitting at the Darwaja of Lakshuman Singh. He has alleged that all of a sudden Amirchand Mahto armed with rifle, Dularchand Mahto armed with gun, Jainarain Mahto armed with gun, Sudarshan Mahto armed with gun, Chandeshwar Mahto armed with rifle, Uma Thakur armed with gun, Shyamlal Mahto armed with gun, all having his co-villagers came and stood in the southern side to Shiv Mandir situated West to Dalan of 3 Lakshuman Singh. According to him they had come towards southern side and no sooner of their arrival. Amirchand Mahto opened fire which was followed by indiscriminate firing by others. The informant had claimed that the firing made by Amirchand Mahto had hit over the neck of his father who fell down and also died instantaneously at the spot. The informant had also stated that he along with others had hidden themselves inside Dalan for their safety and in fact none of the villagers could even dare to come forward on account of indiscriminate firing resorted by the appellants and others. The informant has also stated that what the accused persons heard sound of jeep belonging to police official they had a hasty retreat and had fled way. The motive for such occurrence according to the informant was that since his father happened to be a wrestler and the accused persons were all having a bad reputation they were aggrieved on account their having scolded / chided by his father from time-to-time. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Piro (Charpokhari) P.S. Case No.2 of 1979 was registered leading to investigation of the case by the police which after completing had submitted a charge sheet where the appellants along with others were put on trial and convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment giving rise to these two appeals. 4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross- examination as well as from the statement of accused persons recorded 4 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial of occurrence. It has further been suggested that deceased was done to death at a different place in altogether different manner by unknown criminals but on account of village politics / animosity the appellants and others had been falsely implicated. The defence however has led no evidence in support of its case. 5. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding recorded by the learned lower court is based entirely upon conjecture and surmises. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned lower court had proceeded and concluded in a wholly mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence on record in judicious manner which could have, if properly scrutinized, reveal that none of the material witnesses stood the test of cross-examination to the extent of supporting their status to be an eye witness to occurrence. On this score, further elaborating and by referring to different paras of the evidence of PWs, it has been argued that all the witnesses had given a wholly inconsistent and unreliable version with regard to manner of occurrence which in turn did defy their status as an eye witness. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted that from the evidence of doctor, PW-8 it could be safely inferred

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.