Jharkhand High Court
Janki Mahto @ Janki Ram Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1194 of 2003
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence
dated 31.07.2003, passed by the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge Vth, Bokaro in S.T. No.107/95)
---
1. Janki Mahto @ Janki Ram Mahto
2. Chintu Ram Mahto
3. Raghunath Mahto
All sons of Duban Mahto, resident of village- Dabar Bahal,
P.S. Chas (M), District-Bokaro. ... Appellants
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
--
PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
--
For the Appellants : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate;
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, APP.
--
Reserved on: 03/05/2019 Pronounced on: 5/03/2021
...
RatnakerBhengra, J.:
Heard the parties.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 31.07.2003,passed by the learned
Additional District &Sessions Judge, Vth,Bokaro in S.T. No.107/95,
whereby and whereunder, all the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section
324 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and period already
undergone were ordered to be set off.
3. Letter no. 01/ 18 dated 22-09-2018 has been received from I/C
Additional Session Judge-V, Bokaro and it has been informed that
appellant no. 2 Chintu Ram Mahto has died on 18-01-2017. Hence, appeal
of appellant no. 2 Chintu Ram Mahto stands abated.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written report dated 10-08-
1994 of the informant PW-6 Vidyadhar Mahto is that on 10.08.1994 at
about 10a.m. informant proceeded from his house to his field Kamalia
Peenda and reached Danditand at 10:15 a.m. There he saw the accused
Janki Mahto armed with farsa, Chintu Mahto armed with tangi and
Raghunath Mahto armed with kulhari standing on the path. On seeing him
accused Janki Mahto ordered to kill him and said informant had planted
paddy saplings in the field. Thereafter, accused Janki Mahto gave farsa
blow on his forehead causing injury as a result of which he fell down.
Thereupon, Chintu Mahto gave tangi blow on his arm and accused
Raghunath Mahto gave tangi blow on his leg causing cut injury. Informant
further stated that on his shout, his nephews namely Madan Kumar Mahto
PW-4, Nakul Mahto PW-5 and Fani Mahto PW-8 who were working in the
field, rushed there then the accused persons assaulted them also by tangi
and farsa causing injury on their head and arm. They also received serious
injury on their person. It has further been alleged that Kharu Mahto PW-3,
Puran Mahto PW-2 and Ashok Mahto PW-7 and others villagers also came
there and then accused persons left them and fled away towards their
house. Informant further stated that field in which they had planted paddy
saplings for that field a case was continuing in the court between the
parties for long and for this reason accused persons assaulted him and
his three nephews with farsa and tangi with intention to kill them.
5. On the basis of written report of the informant, Chas (M) Police
Station case no.45 of 1994 case was registered under sections 341, 307,
326, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. After
investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons
under sections 341, 307, 326, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the
court of sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons
under sections 307/ 34, 326, 324 and 341 of IPC. Trial was held and on
conclusion of trial, the accused persons or the appellants herein were
convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
6. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 11
prosecution witnesses out of whom P.W.6 Vidyadhar Mahto is the informant
of the case; P.W.2 Puran Mahto is the brother of the informant and P.W.3
Kharu Mahto is also related to the informant; P.W.4 Madan Kumar
Mahto,P.W.5 Nakul Mahto and P.W.8 Fani Bhushan Mahto are nephew of
the informant; P.W.1 and P.W.11 are formal witnesses and P.W.7 is
tendered witness; P.W.-9 is the investigating officer of the case and C.W.1
is Dr. Chandeshwar Chaudhary, who is a court witness and he had
examined the injured person.
7. Defence had examined one witness D.W.1 Parvati Charan Mahto.
D.W.1 has proved the registered sale deed no. 2046 dated 15-02-1988
which was marked as Ext.-A. D.W.1 further proved the two rent receipts
which were marked as Ext.-B and Ext.-B/1 and order passed by the
Excetive Magistrate in M.P. case no. 1488 of 86 under section 145 Cr.P.C
as Ext.-C.
8. PW-6 Vidyadhar Mahto is the informant of this case. He has stated in
his evidence that on 10.08.1994 at about 10:00 a.m. he was going to his
field and when he reached Danditand he saw accused Janki Mahto armed
with farsa, Chinta Ram Mahto armed with tangi and Raghunath Mahto
armed with kulhari standing there. When he reached near them, then
accused Janki Mahto ordered to kill him and thereafter Janki Mahto gave
farsa blow on his head which caused injury on his right head. Thereafter,
Chinta Mahto assaulted him by tangi on his right arm and accused
Raghunath assaulted him by kulhari on his left leg. Informant further stated
that he raised alarm thereupon, Nakul Mahto PW-5 and Madan Mahto PW-
4 came there to save him but accused persons also assaulted them by
tangi and kulhari and injured them. He has further stated that his other
nephew Fani Mahto PW-8 also came there but accused Chinta Mahto
assaulted him by tangi on his belly and injured him. In the meantime,
villagers Puran Mahto PW-2, Kharu Mahto PW-3 and Ashok Mahto PW-7
came then accused persons fled away. He was taken to police station by
vehicle and from there to Chas Referral Hospital for treatment. Informant
has proved his signature on the written report which was marked as Ext.-2
9. PW-4 Madan Kumar Mahto,PW-5 Nakul Mahto and P.W.-8 Fani
Bhusan Mahto are the nephew of the informant. All these witnesses had
arrived on the place of occurrence, seeing the assault on the informant.
P.W.4 has stated in his evidence that accused Janki Mahto gave farsa
blow on his right shoulder which caused cut injury and he fell down and
then Janki Mahto again assaulted him by farsa on his right leg as a result
blood oozed out. P.W.4 further stated that when Nakul came, then he was
assaulted by Janki Mahto with farsa on his left hand and accused Chintu
gave tangi blow on the back on Nakul Mahto. When Fani Bhusan Mahto
came there then accused Chinta Mahto assaulted him by tangi on his belly
as result he fell down below the ridge of the field. He has further stated that
several persons including Puran Mahto PW-2 came and then accused fled
away. PW-5 Nakul Mahto is another nephew of the informant. PW-5 has
stated in his evidence that when he reached the place of occurrence then
accused Janki Mahto assaulted Madan Mahto PW-4 by farsa and on
seeing this he tried to flee away but accused Raghunath and Chinta
Mahto assaulted him by tangi on his left arm and he was injured.PW-8
Fani Bhusan Mahto is also nephew of the informant. He has stated in his
evidence that when he reached at the place of occurrence then he was
assaulted by the accused persons with tangi and farsas. P.W.8 further
stated that accused Chintu Ram Mahto assaulted him by farsa on his right
thigh and accused Janki assaulted him by tangi on his leg.
10. PW-2 Puran Mahto is the brother of the informant. He has stated in
his evidence that on the day of occurrence he along with three labourers
were uprooting paddy seed plant from his field near the place of
occurrence. On alarm he went to the place of occurrence and saw accused
persons were chasing his brother Vidyadhar. Thereafter, accused Janki
and Chinta assaulted Vidyadhar by tangi and farsa respectively, as a
result Vidyadhar fell down, then, accused Raghunath Mahto assaulted him
by tangi on his leg. He has further stated that when his son Nakul PW-5
came to save Vidyadhar Mahto then accused Janki Mahto by tangi and
accused Chinta Ram Mahto by farsa assaulted Nakul. In the mean time his
nephew Madan Mahto came, then Chinta Mahto gave farsa blow on his
shoulder.P.W.-2 further stated that his nephew Fani was assaulted by
Chinta Mahto on the upper part of waist.
11. PW-3 Kharu Mahto has stated in his evidence that on hulla he
reached at place of occurrence where he saw Vidyadhar Mahto, Madan
Mahto, Nakul Mahta and Fani Bhusan lying in injured condition and saw
accused Janki Mahto, Chintu Mahto and Raghunath Mahto fleeing away.
12. CW-1 is Dr. Chandeshwar Choudhary who examined all the four
injured on 10.08.1994 at Sub divisional Referral Hospital, Chas.
(1) Doctor on examination of Vidyadhar Mahto found following injuries
on his person (i) sharp cut 3" x 2" x upto bone level on right side of leg, (ii)
sharp cut 3" x 2" x upto bone level on right side of frontal part of leg, (iii)
sharp cut 4" x ½" x1/4" on lateral side of right shoulder and (iv) sharp cut 2"
x 1" x ½" over his left leg. Doctor opined that injury no. 1 and injury no. 2
were grievous and dangerous to life and were caused by sharp cut
weapons.
(2) Doctor on examination of P.W.8 Fani Bhushan had found one sharp
cut injury 5" x ½" x ¼" on left side of abdomen caused by sharp cutting
weapon which was simple in nature.
(3) Doctor examined PW-5 Nakul Mahto and found two injuries on his
person (i) sharp cut injury 4" x 2" x 1" with bone cut on left arm and (ii)
sharp cut injury 3" x 2" x ½" on left scapula. Doctor opined that both the
aforesaid injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury no.(i)
was grevious and injury no. (ii) was simple in nature .
(4) C.W.-1Doctor on examination of PW-4 Madan Mahto found two
injuries on his person (i) sharp cut 6" x 1" x ½" on clavicle arm up to bone
level on the right side and (ii) sharp cut 1" x ½" x 1/3" on right knee. Doctor
opined that both the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and
were simple in nature.
(5) C.W.-1 or the doctor stated that he had examined the aforesaid
injured on police requisition and all the injuries report were in his pen and
signature which were already marked as Ext.-7 series.Doctor further stated
that all te aforesaid injuries were caused by tangi, farsa and kulhari.
13. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer of this case, has proved the
endorsement on the written report and formal FIR which were marked Ext.-
3 and Ext.-4 respectively. He has also proved seizure list prepared and
signed by him which was marked as Ext.-5. Investigating Officer has further
proved the injury requisition of all four injured persons which were marked
Ext.-6, Ext.-6/a, Ext.-6/b and Ext.-6/c. He has also proved four injury report
issued by Dr. Chandeshwar Choudhary CW-1 which were marked as Ext.-
7, Ext.-7/a, Ext.-7/b and Ext.-7/b.
Arguments of the leaned counsel for the appellants:
14. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that
the case of the appeal shall be viewed in the background of the land
dispute and even the competent court-below has held that the accused
persons were in possession of the land and hence, it cannot be said that
the appellants were aggressors. Counsel, therefore, says that the entire
dispute and the subsequent case and trial that follows and the appeal has
to be viewed in the background of prior enmity and the appellants not
being the aggressors, they have been wrongly convicted and sentenced
and they have also wrongly suffered some period in custody and, therefore,
they have anyway already been sufficiently punished.
15. Learned counsel also submitted that it is to be noted that initially the
appellants were also tried for the offences under section 307 and 326 of the
Indian Penal Code and the prosecution failed to prove the charges against
the appellants and hence they have been convicted only under section 324
and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Based on the finding that appellants
conviction under section 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code could not
be proved likewise given that this is the case of prior enmity and related
and interested witnesses, the conviction and the sentence under section
341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code also need to be set aside.
16. Learned counsel also submitted that this is a case in which the
prosecution has only relied upon the evidence of related or interested
witnesses and except for the Doctor and the Investigating Officer the
evidence relied upon is those of related witnesses and that too these
witnesses have given contradictory statements and the Court has not dealt
with these contradictory evidences correctly and taken into account. Hence,
the conviction of the appellants under section 324 and 341 of the Indian
Penal Code cannot be sustained.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants then points to the evidence of
Puran Mahto PW-2, who is brother of the informant and refers to
paragraph-24 of his deposition and submitted that it is clear from this
paragraph that informant was unconscious for three days then how the
written report was submitted on the same day. Then learned counsel refers
to the evidence of PW-4 or Madan Kumar Mahto and refers to paragraph-
21 and paragraph-26 of his deposition and submits that PW-4 has
supported the evidence of PW-2 wherein he says that PW-6 or informant
had become unconscious and only after three days he regained his
consciousness. Therefore, the written report of the informant or PW-6
cannot be relied upon. Similarly, learned counsel has referred to the
evidence of PW-5 or Nakul Mahto and referred paragraph-14 of his
deposition and again on the same basis of unconsciousness for three days
said that the written report of PW-6 cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel
has also referred to the evidence of PW-8 that is of Fani Bhusan Mahto and
pointed out from paragraph-6 of his deposition wherein he has stated that
PW-6 or informant was unconscious and that the first statement was of
Madan Kumar Mahto who is PW-4 and, therefore, counsel says that the
written report of PW-6 is not reliable because he was unconscious and the
first statement of Madan Kumar Mahto was suppressed. Concluding
therefore,the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the basis
of the evidence of PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and P.W.-8, the written report cannot
be of the informant, hence, the fardbeyan on record which is part of the FIR
is very much suspicious and doubtful.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants then refers to the evidence of PW-
2 of Puran Mahto, particularly, paragraph-25 of his deposition and submits
that herein this witness PW-2 has said that his statement was taken or
recorded wherein he had put his signature and then injured were sent to
the hospital. Counsel therefore submits that the basis of FIR could have
been or should have been his statement and not statement of Vidyadhar or
P.W.6 who was unconscious, therefore, that particular fardbeyan of
Vidyadhar Mahto is concoction and therefore, the FIR is false FIR. Counsel
also says that it seems that the statement of Puran Mahto is also not in the
record and prosecution has withheld the statement of PW-2 for the reasons
best known to them. Counsel then refers to the deposition of PW-4 or
Madan Kumar Mahto, particularly, paragraph-25 and says that Madan
Kumar Mahto has submitted in his deposition that he was first questioned
in police station and there his statement was taken wherein he had put his
signature. Counsel for the appellants herein then again submits that this
statement of PW-4 could also have been the basis of the written report or
FIR but this has not been done so. Counsel for the appellants has then said
that the manner of occurrence also raises doubt about the assault that is
said to have been taken place. Counsel submits that in the written report or
the FIR it is said that Janki Mahto was carrying a farsa while Chinta Mahto
was carrying a tangi and Raghunath Mahto was carrying a kulhari.
However, PW-2 has stated in his evidence that Janki Mahto was carrying a
tangi, Chinta Mahto was carrying a farsa and Raghunath Mahto was
carrying a tangi. Counsel says that looking to the alleged weapons that
have been referred to have been carried, the weapons have not been
attributed consistently to all the accused persons or appellants and,
therefore, this raises doubt regarding the manner of occurrence or as to
whether any assault by any weapon has taken place against the injured
persons.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants further referred to para-11 of the
evidence of investigating officer P.W.-9 and submitted that investigating
officer in his evidence had stated that PW-2 Puran Mahto had not stated
before him that informant Vidyadhar was chased and assaulted. Further,
learned counsel pointed para-12 of the investigating officer and submitted
that P.W.-4 Madan Mahto did not tell him that Janki Mahto had assaulted
Nakul P.W.-5 with tangi and hence, evidence of investigating officer raises
doubt in the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that
there is no injury on the head of the informant or PW-6 though in his own
written report or in the FIR informant has alleged that he was assaulted on
the head.Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that
occurrence is of year 1994 and more than 25 years have passed and
appellants have faced rigors and vigors of trial and these circumstances
may be considered in deciding this appeal.
Arguments of the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State:
20. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State,
has argued that the written report or the FIR is not doubtful and this is
apparent from the evidence of the Investigating Officer or PW-9 who has in
paragraph-8 of his evidence stated that he had taken the statements of all
four witnesses including the informant and that was done at the police
station itself and therefore, learned APP says that this statement in
paragraph-8 makes it clear that the person must have been conscious
including the informant and their statement was taken. Therefore, there is
no doubt about the FIR. Learned APP says that in any way the written
report and the FIR were both admitted as evidence without objection at the
stage of the trial and such arguments regarding the authenticity of the FIR
cannot be raised now.
21. Learned APP further argues that occurrence is amply proved by the
evidence of the Investigating Officer who had gone to examine the place of
occurrence. He has in paragraph-3 of his evidence has pointed out that he
had proceeded to the place of occurrence and there he had inspected the
place of occurrence. Even from the evidence of PW-2 Puran Mahto, PW-4
Madan Kumar Mahto, PW-5 Nakul Mahto and PW-6 Vidyadhar Mahto, it is
apparent that the occurrence took in the particular place of occurrence that
has been indicated in the written report or FIR. Therefore, the place of
occurrence is not in doubt from the evidences of these injured witnesses.
Counsel then says that the ocular version of events as given by the
informant PW-6, particularly, the injuries that have been sustained due to
the assaults have been fully corroborated by the medical evidence of Court
witness Dr. Chandeshwar Choudhary. Learned APP further submitted that
the ocular evidences of the other injuried i.e. P.W.4,P.W.5 and P.W.8 is also
fully supported by the medical evidence of injuries from the evidence of Dr.
Chandeshwar Choudhary.
22. Regarding the weapons that were used, counsel says that there is no
doubt that weapons were used because four persons have been injured
and that they also sustained grievous injuries and injured witnesses are
fully trustworthy and reliable. It is very absurd to think that a person will
concoct injuries on his body, let alone four persons concocting about
injuries on themselves, including injuries that are grievous on their bodies.
The variation in the weapons used is a minor and can occur, however, the
Doctor or C.W.1 has said that sharp cutting weapons such as farsa, tangi
and kulhari were used. Learned APP also said that the injury requisitions
have also been exhibited as Ext.-6, Ext.-6/a, Ext.-6/b and Ext.-6/c without
objection and correspondingly the injury report of the Doctor has also been
exhibited without objection as Ext.-7, Ext.-7/a, Ext.-7/b and Ext.-7/c and
these injuries can only be attributed to sharp cutting weapons which were
probably in the nature of tangi, farsa and kulhari. It does not really matter
too much as to who was exactly carrying what but it is clear from the l
evidence of the injured prosecution witnesses that they were carrying these
weapons of assault. Lastly learned counsel for that State submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned court below is based on evidence and requires no interference by
this court.
FINDINGS
23. Having heard the learned counsels and going through the records
and evidences of the case, I find that the background of the case is land
dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants has
questioned the authenticity of the FIR and hence, it would be pertinent to
examine the FIR. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the written report
10.08.1994 of the informant PW-6 Vidyadhar Mahto. Learned counsel for
the appellant has from the evidence of PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 has
submitted that the written report cannot be of the informant as informant
was unconscious when he was carried to the police station and hence, the
written report on record which is part of the FIR is very much suspicious
and doubtful. But, on perusal of record, I find that the written report of the
informant P.W.-6 was admitted as exhibit without objection and the
signature of informant Vidyadhar Mahto or P.W.-6, on the written report
was also admitted as an exhibit without objection. Moreover, four person
from the informant side were injured in this case and this injured persons
were examined on the requisition of the police viz Ext.-6 series and doctor
or C.W.-1 had examined these injured persons and had proved their injury
report viz Ext.-7 series and hence the authenticity of the written report and
FIR cannot be raised at this appellate stage.
24. Informant PW-6 Vidyadhar Mahto has deposed in his evidence that
Chinta Mahto assaulted him by tangi on his right arm and accused
Raghunath assaulted him by kulhari on his left leg. P.W.4, Madan Kumar
Mahto has stated in his evidence that accused Janki Mahto gave farsa
blow on his right shoulder which caused cut injury and he fell down and
thereafter, Janki Mahto again assaulted him by farsa on his right leg as a
result blood oozed out. PW-5, Nakul Mahto has stated in his evidence that
when he reached the place of occurrence then accused Janki Mahto
assaulted Madan Mahto PW-4 by farsa and on seeing this he tried to flee
away but accused Raghunath and Chinta Mahto assaulted him by tangi on
his left arm. Further, PW-8 Fani Bhusan Mahto has stated in his evidence
that when he reached at the place of occurrence then accused Chintu
Ram Mahto assaulted him by farsa on his right thigh and accused Janki
assaulted him by tangi on his leg.
25. All the four injured persons were examined by the doctor or CW-1.
From the evidence of doctor, I find that doctor had found four cut injury on
the person of the informant PW-6 Vidyadhar Mahto and doctor had on
examination of Madan Mahto PW-4 had found two sharp injuries on his
person. Further, doctor had found two sharp curt injuries on the person of
the PW-5 Nakul Mahto and one sharp cut injury on the person of PW-8
Fani Bhusan Mahto. Doctor opined that injury sustained by these injured
were caused by tangi, farsa and kulhari The injuries report of all the four
injured were marked as Ext.-7 series which is on record. Hence, doctor had
found sharp cutting injuries on the person of all the four injured which is
corroborated by the ocular evidence of four injured PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and
PW-8 and these injured have stated in their evidence that they were
assaulted by the appellants with farsa and tangi. Some variations may
occur in the evidence as to who assaulted whom and weapon of assault
carried on by the appellants, but these variations are minor in the light of
the injuries that were sustained by the four injured persons.
26. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that informant side
were aggressor as the appellant side were in possession of the land in
question and regarding this appellants have submitted sale deed Ext-A,
Rent receipt Ext.-B and certified copies of judgment passed by the
Executive Magistrate, Chas, in M.P. Case no. 1488/86 in a proceeding
under section 145 of Cr.P.C. But, merely possession of a land does not
confer title and title of the land has to be decided by a competent court.
27. Hence, from the evidence, I find that accused persons or appellants
herein had arrived at the place of occurrence, variously armed with sharp
cutting weapons farsa and tangi and first of all the appellants assaulted
informant PW-6 Vidyadhar Mahto and injured him. When informants
nephew PW-4 Madan Mahto,PW-5 Nakul Mahto and PW-8 Fani Mahto
came to rescue the informant, then they were also assaulted by the
appellants as a result three nephews of the informant also sustained injury
due to assault by the appellants which is corroborated by the injury report
viz Ext.-7 series. So, the prosecution has proved the charges under section
324 and section 341 of IPC against the appellants.
28. Accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction dated 31-7-2003
passed by the learned Additional District &Sessions Judge, Vth,Bokaro in
S.T. No.107/95, convicting the appellants under sections 324 and 341 of
the Indian Penal Code is sustained and upheld.
29. Regarding sentence, I find that occurrence is of the year 1994 and
more than 25 years have passed till now and appellants have faced the
rigors and vigors of trial. Appellant no.2 has passed away and appellant
no.1 Janki Mahto @ Janki Ram Mahto is in his sixties and appellant no.3
Raghunath Mahto is in his fifties. From the record I, find that appellant no.1
Janki Mahto @ Janki Ram Mahto has already undergone more than one
month fifteen days and appellant no.3 Raghunath Mahto has undergone
about one month fifteen days in custody. Hence, considering the rigors of
trial, time and circumstances, a modified sentence of three months
imposed under section 324 of IPC against the appellants, any period alredy
spent by the accused or the appellants in custody to be adjusted or
subtracted from this modified sentence. So far as sentence under section
341 of IPC is concerned it is to be noted that appellants have already
served the imposed sentence of one month by the learned court blow. As
injuries were caused to the informant side, a consolidated compensation of
Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to four injured and injured persons namely PW-4
Madan Kumar Mahto, PW-5 Nakul Mahto , PW-6 Vidyadhar Mahto and
PW-8 Fani Bhusan Mahto who will receive Rs. 5,000/- each out of the
compensation amount. In default appellants will undergo two months SI.
The compensation amount may be deposited in the court below. The bail
bonds of appellant no.1 Janki Mahto @ Janki Ram Mahto and appellant
no.3 Raghunath Mahto are cancelled.
30. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated-05/03, 2021
S.B.-NAFR
