Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.43 of 1990 [Against 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 Asstt. Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur] =========================================================== The State of Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Jyoti Mahto son of Banke Mahto 2. Chandeshwar Mahto son of Ram Deo Mahto 3. Mahesh Mahto son of Ram Khelawan Mahto 4. Tulsi Mahto son of Budhu Mahto 5. Ram Pravesh Mahto son of Ram Khelawan Mahto 6. Ram Uchit Mahto son of Ram Chandra Mahto. 7. Baijnath Mahto son of Jyoti Mahto 8. Ram Chandra Mahto son of Banke Mahto 9. Lal Bihari Mahto son of Ramdev Mahto 10. Ram Briksh Mahto son of Ram Chandra Mahto 11. Sitaram Mahto son of Meghu Mahto 12. Yogendra Mahto son of Budhu Mahto 13. Ram Ekbal Mahto son of Ram Chander Mahto 14. Horil Mahto son of Meghu Mahto All residents of Raja Pakar Bazar, P.S. Rajapakar District- Vaishali at Hajipur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shivesh Chandra Mishra, APP For the Respondent/s : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 27-11-2012 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 Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.43 of 1990 dt.27-11-2012 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 [STATUTE] . 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 Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.43 of 1990 dt.27-11-2012 3 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. 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 Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.43 of 1990 dt.27-11-2012 4 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 also found that there is no such contradiction in the evidence of related or interested witnesses which goes to the very root of Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.43 of 1990 dt.27-11-2012 5 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 scrutin

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.