Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 1994 dt.17-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.386 of 1994 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30th November, 1994 PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 318 of 1984 BY SHRI P.N. Yadav, 1st ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, Patna ======================================================== 1.RAMA MAHTO 2. PEYARE MAHTO 3. RAM BALAK MAHTO, ALIAS PALAK MAHTO 4. SUBASH MAHTO ALL SONS OF LATE CHAMRU MAHTO 5. SHIV SHANKAR MAHTO 6. RAM ASHISH MAHTO BOTH SONS OF PEYARE MAHTO 7.ARJUN MAHTO 8. MITHILESH MAHTO, BOTH SONS OF RAM BALAK MAHTO ALIAS RAM PALAK MAHTO 9. SHYAM BAHADUR MAHTO, SON OF SIYA SHARAN MAHTO ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHOTI NAWADA P.S. FATWAH, DISTRICT PATNA .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S ================================================ APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. NAGENDRA SHARMA FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. ================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-08-2012 ********* Sheema Ali Khan, J. There are nine appellants before this Court. Counsel for the appellants submits that Peyare Mahton and Ram Balak Mahton, sons of Chamru Mahton have died during pendency of the appeal. Such statements have been made on the oral Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 1994 dt.17-08-2012 instruction of the client. In view of the oral instruction received by the Counsel for the appellants, it is not essential to ascertain these facts by asking for a report which would unnecessarily delay the disposal of the appeal, especially in view of the order I intend to pass. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30th November, 1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 318 of 1984 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under [STATUTE] to undergo two years. 3. The prosecution case has been instituted by Parmeshwar Mahton, P.W.7 who has stated that, his brother had returned home after selling ice-cream at Fatuha, when the accused persons entered his Angan and began to assault to Ramjiwan Mahton (P.W.1) with lathi and bricks. In Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 1994 dt.17-08-2012 the First Information Report it is specially mentioned that all of them were armed with lathies except for Nand Mahto who was armed with a brick with which he assaulted Ramjiwan Mahto. There is an allegation that when the ladies of the house tried to intervene, they too were assaulted, it is said that the informant, Ram Dulari Devi (P.W.3) and Ramrati Devi (P.W. 5) received injuries in the said occurrence. The motive of the occurrence as disclosed in the First Information Report is that the starter and the switch of the Pump belonging to Rama Mahto had been stolen from his field, he had visited a ‘Tantrik’ who had perhaps disclosed the name of Ramjiwan Mahton (P.W.1) as the man who had committed the theft. It is alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid suspicion, this occurrence had taken place. 4. The defence case is that a case was instituted by Rama Mahto, alleging theft and in order to save himself and Ramjiwan Mahton the case was instituted making completely false allegations. 5. Five witnesses have been examined in this case. The injury report has not been Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 1994 dt.17-08-2012 produced. The doctor has not been examined in this case to support the injures. 6. Under these circumstances, the Court has examined as to whether the evidence of the five witnesses is sufficient to convict the appellants. 7. P.W.1 Ramjiwan Mahton in his examination-in-chief has made specific allegation against Arjun Mahton. He said that he has given a blow with iron rod on the head, whereas Peyare Mahton, appellant no. 2 caught hold of his neck. 8. Counsel for the appellants points out that P.W. 1 Ramjiwan Mahton has stated in his evidence that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer in this case. He has also not supported the case that the females of the house were assaulted. It is, therefore, submitted that Ramjiwan Mahton has not supported the manner of occurrence and has not even explained the injuries that he received during the occurrence. Besides which it does appear strange that the Investigating Officer had not examined him although he was injured in the occurrence. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 1994 dt.17-08-2012 9. P.W. 2, Ramkali Devi, sister of the informant claims that she went to the place of occurrence and that P.W. 1 Ramjiwan Mahton was assaulted by all the accused persons. It is alleged that Arjun gave blow on the head. This witness denies that a counter case was filed in which Rama Mahto received injuries. 10. P.W. 3, Ram Dulari Devi is the niece of the informant. She claims that she was injured in the occurrence and that she received a Bhala injury on the leg. Ram Dulari is a chance witness who was visiting the informant. She is not a permanent resident of the place. Both P.Ws. 2 and 3 claim that they have received injuries but this aspect of the matter has not been supported by bringing the injury report on record. 11. P.W. 4, Shyama Devi is the sister of the informant. According to her she had seen Palak Mahto pressing the neck of P.W. 1. She has not made any specific allegations against any of the accused persons, although she states that P.W. 1 was assaulted by a Farsa. The statement of Shyama Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 1994 dt.17-08-2012 Devi is contrary to the statement of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as well as the informant as none of the witnesses have disclosed that any of the appellants were armed with a ‘Farsa’. 12. P.W. 5, Ramrati Devi, the wife of the informant has stated that s

Applicable IPC Section: 425

Statute Text:
Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. None. Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".