Rabindra Mahto And Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand [Alongwith Criminal ...

2. The accused appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Additional Judicial Commissioner. The appellants Rabindra Mahto, Balram Mahto and Lemboo Mahto were found guilty under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced Page 0132to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellants Jag Mohan Mahto, Fagu Mahto, Dhananjay Mahto, Huna Mahto and Girish Mahto were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Further appellants Jag Mohan Mahto and Lemboo were found guilty under Section 323 IPC and were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the accused-appellants was dismissed by the High Court, aggrieved by the same, the present proceedings were taken up by the appellants.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated by the eye witness Gopal Puran, PW-5 in fardbeyan on 11.7.1989 at 8.30 P.M. before Sub-Inspector N.P. Singh of P.S. Jopno Puti Tola, is that at about 9.00 A.M. he had gone to his field lying in Jopno Puti Tola Kend Tand with Sohrai Puran, Ram Mohan Puran, Cheta Puran, and others. They sowed Gunja in the field and thereafter they were taking rest under the Kend Tree. They saw that from the side of Jopno Village Balram Mahto, Rabindra Nath Mahto, Girish Mahto, Fagu Mahto, Huna Mahto, Dhananjay Mahto, Lemboo Mahto, Laloo Mahto, Jagmohan Mahto along with five-six other persons, armed with tangi, lathi, farsa and sword came to the spot and enquired from them as to why they plowed the field, whereupon there was an exchange of hot words. All of a sudden Huna Mahto pelted stone on Sohrai Puran, the deceased, as a result of which Sohrai Puran fell down. Balram and Rabindra assaulted Sohrai Puran and also assaulted Ram Mohan Puran. Thereafter Jagmohan, Laloo, Lemboo, Fagu and others attacked Ram Mohan and Sohrai Puran with lathi, farsa and sword as a result of which Sohrai Puran and Ram Mohan Puran died. Gopal Puran, PW-5 and Cheta Puran, PW-9 were also assaulted by lathi. Thereafter they ran towards Village Puti Tola and raised alarm whereupon villagers came to the spot but before they could arrive, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. As mentioned above this fardbeyan was recorded on 11.7.1989 at 2030 Hrs. i.e. 8.30 P.M. and the FIR was registered at 10.00 A.M. on 12.7.1989. The copy of the FIR was sent to the concerned Magistrate on 13.7.1989.

4. The Additional Judicial Commissioner and the High Court, on the basis of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Rabindra, Lemboo and Balram committed the offence of murder of Sohrai Puran and Ram Mohan Puran and other appellants committed crime in furtherance of their common object forming unlawful assembly, which was formed to commit murder of the deceased persons and attack on the members present with them. On the basis of evidence of eye-witness, as there was specific evidence of assault by accused Rabindra Mahto, Balram Mahto and Lemboo Mahto on the deceased with tangi, sword and farsa, which was corroborated by the medical evidence, they were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and other accused Page 0133persons who assaulted the deceased with Lathi were held guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

5. The post mortem report prepared by PW-7, Dr. Niranjan Minz found the following injuries on deceased Sohrai Puran:

Page 0137

19. After going through the material on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has led reliable evidence the veracity of which is not dislodged by delay in recording of the FIR and delay in sending the same to the Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of this case. At best it can be taken to be an infirmity in investigation.

20. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed.