Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.382 of 1990 =========================================================== Manik Chandra Mahto son of late Sheonandan Mahto resident of village Manikpur, P.S. Suryagarha, Distt-Munger. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s With Criminal Appeal (DB) No.424 of 1990 =========================================================== Kapildeo Mahto son of late Sheonandan Mahto resident of village Manikpur, P.S. Suryagarha, Distt-Munger. …. …. Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar …. …. Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Vimala Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Miss. Shashi Bala Verma, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) Date: 7-11-2012 Cr. Appeal No. 382 of 1990 wherein Manik Chand Mahto happens to be appellant and Cr. Appeal No. 424 of 1990 wherein Kapildeo Mahto happens to be appellant, commonly originate against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8th of August 1990 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 694/86 holding both the appellants guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and sentencing them independently to undergo RI for life, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2 2. The prosecution case as per Fardbeyan of Sheela Devi (PW-3) given to the police officer on 27.04.1986 at about 1:00 p.m. in village Usraha Taal in Tesjha in brief is that her husband late Jawahar Mahto had three brothers out of whom her husband was the eldest and was followed by two other younger brothers namely appellants Kapideo Mahto and appellant Manik Chand Mahto. She has also stated that both her father-in-law and mother-in-law, living together with the appellants Kapildeo and Manik Chand had died whereas her husband, Jawahar Mahto (deceased) was living separately. She has also claimed that the partition of most of land between the aforesaid three brothers had already taken place and only a piece of 30 Katthas of land was kept as a joint family property for meeting the expenses in the marriage of their sister Madhu Devi. According to informant though such marriage of the sister of the appellants and her deceased husband namely, Madhu Devi, had already taken place some three years back but the aforementioned piece of land kept in jointness in the name of three brothers was still continuing and the two appellants, Kapildeo Mahto and Manik Chand Mahto had forcibly also usurped the share of 10 Kathas of land of her husband, Jawahar Mahto (deceased). 3. In her fardbeyan she had further alleged that at about 8:00 a.m. on 27.04.1986 while her husband Jawahar Mahto (deceased) along with his brother-in-laws, the two appellants, 3 Kapildeo Mahto and Manik Chand Mahto were winnowing of Khesari crop, a verbal altercation amongst them had taken place because her husband Jawahar Mahto had asked for his share in the crop grown of the aforementioned 10 Katthas of his land, forcibly occupied by the two appellants, Kapildeo Mahto and Manik Chand Mahto. The informant has specifically alleged that in the midst of such verbal altercation, appellants Kapildeo Mahto and Manik Chand Mahto had picked up a wooden plank(Phatti) used for rowing of boats and had started chasing her husband with a view to assault him. The informant has also stated that having seen this part of the collective bid of both the appellants for assaulting her husband, she had raised hulla and had run towards the eastern side following the appellants as well as her husband and on her such hulla Jagdish Mandal (PW-2), Ram Prasad Mahto (PW 1) working in their Khalihan along with several other persons had reached and ran towards her husband Jawahar but he having been chased by the appellants was assaulted by them by the aforesaid wooden Phatti near Usraha Taal in the village Tesjha in course of which he was thrown on the ground and had started crying with pains. The informant has also claimed that when she with others had reached near her husband, they had found her husband, Jawahar to be dead and had also seen the appellants Kapildeo Mahto and Manik Chand Mahto running away towards eastern side. According to the informant one Sahendra Mahto (not examined) who was returning 4 from Bazar had also seen both the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence. With these facts the informant had alleged in the fardbeyan that her husband Jawahar Mahto (deceased) was done to death by the appellants Kapildeo Mahto and Manik Chand Mahto by the wooden Phatti used for rowing the boat. 4. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 100/86 under [STATUTE] was registered whereafter the investigation was commenced by the police, resulting into submission of charge-sheet against both the appellants. The case was subsequently committed to the court of sessions and ultimately in the trial both the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgement, giving rise to these two appeals. 5. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that appellants/accused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this false and concocted case by the informant, a wayward dubious woman who was falsely claiming herself to be wife of deceased Jawahar Mahto only with a design to grab the landed property of the share of the deceased Jawahar Mahto. In this regard a specific plea of defence had been taken by both the appellants that deceased himself was a patient of epilepsy and actually died a natural death on account of his illness. 6. Assailing the findings recorded by the trial court in the 5

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.