Puran Mahto vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2023 Latest Caselaw 634 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 386 of 1993
                                 ---------
(Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.1993
passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.C.No. 256 of 1980/51
of 1992.)
                                 ---------
1. Puran Mahto, son of Thakur Mahto (died during pendency of appeal)
2. Sakti Mahto
3. Lakhi Mahto
4. Arjun Mahto
5. Dukhan Mahto @ Dukhan Chaudhary, son of Janki Choudhary, (died during
   pendency of appeal)
   All resident of village Retra Police Station, Sarath, Dist. Deoghar. ...Appellants
                                    -Versus-
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)          ...            ...              ...Respondent
                                    ---------
                                    PRESENT
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

For the Appellants:       Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State:            Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
                                 ---------
C.A.V. on 30.01.2023                          : Pronounced on 07.02.2023
                                 --------
Per Subhash Chand, J.

This Cr. Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants Puran Mahto, Sakti

Mahto, Lakhi Mahto, Arjun Mahto and Dukhan Mahto @ Dukhan Chaudhary against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.1993 passed by the 1st Addl.

Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 256 of 1980/51 of 1992 whereby and

whereunder accused Puran Mahto was held guilty for the charge under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code and the accused persons Dukhan Choudhary and Lakhi Mahto

were held guilty for the charge under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and

convicted accordingly. Accused Arjun Mahto and Sakti Mahto were held guilty for the

charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted accordingly. Rest all

the accused persons, namely, Bharat Mahto, Munni Mahto and Umapad Choudhary

were acquitted from the charge framed against them for the offence under Section 302

read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced Puran Mahto to undergo

imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while accused Dukhan

Choudhary and Lakhi Mahto were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for

the charge under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Arjun

Mahto and Sakti Mahto were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year

for the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this appeal are that the

informant Satya Narayan Mahto had given fardbeyan before the Officer-in-charge of

Sarath Police Station on 18.10.1975 that his co-villager Girish Mahto had received

settlement of Fouti land long back from the Pradhan Sripati Mahto (father of the

informant); but the accused Hari Mahto and Murli Mahto did not allow to take possession

of the said land. Girish Mahto had filed a case in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer,

Deoghar which was pending. In the year of the alleged occurrence i.e. 1975 Girish

Mahto had grown paddy crops over two and half Bighas of land which were not

completely ripe but all the accused persons having armed with Kachia and Lathi in their

hands came to the paddy field and began to harvest unripen paddy at 11:00 a.m. on

18.10.1975. Accused Puran Mahto was armed with Ballam and other accused persons

were armed with Lathi and sickle (Kachia). On receiving information of the same, Girish

Mahto, his brother Darpan Mahto and his son Bino Mahto reached to the paddy field

and asked the accused persons not to harvest unripen paddy which led to altercation.

Thereafter accused Puran Mahto and Hari Mahto (since deceased) assaulted Girish

Mahto with Ballam and lathi respectively as a result of which Girisih Mahto died. Accused

Dukhan Mahto (Choudhary) and Lakhi Mahto assaulted Bino Mahto with lathi as a result

of which Bino Mahto had sustained head injury and also on other parts of his body. He

became unconscious and subsequently died. Accused Arjun Mahto and Sakti Mahto had

assaulted Darpan Mahto with Lathi. Rest of the accused persons also assaulted with

Lathi and the alleged occurrence had been witnessed by Laloo Mahto, Jaideb Mahto,

Mirtunjai Rai and informant also. On the basis of the fardbeyan , F.I.R. was drawn up

and Case Crime No.873 of 1975 was registered with the Sarath Police Station. I.O. after

having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused persons

before the concerned Magistrate who after having taken cognizance thereon committed

the file to the court of sessions for trial.

3. From the Court of sessions, the same was transferred to the Court of the

Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar. Charge was framed and all the accused persons

denied the charge framed against them and claimed to face trial.

4. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused

persons in oral evidence examined P.W.1-Darpan Mahto, P.W.2-Shanti Devi, P.W.3-

Satya Narain Mahto, P.W.4-Ram Kishore Rai, P.W.5-Dr. Hridaya Narain Singh, Medical

officer, in regard to the injuries of the injured persons, P.W.6-Dr. K.B.Sharma was

examined in regard to autopsy report of Girish Mahto (deceased), P.W.7-Dr. Kartik

Prasad was examined who proved the autopsy report of deceased Bino Mahto and

P.W.8- Shailendra Kumar was also examined, who proved the case diary (Ext.8) and

F.I.R. (Ext.9) as secondary evidence. In documentary evidence adduced Amalnama

(settlement) in the writing and signature of Sripat (Ext.1), 13 revenue receipts in writing

and signature of Sripat (Ext.2 to 2/12), F.I.R. (Ext.3), Inquest report(Ext. 3/1),

Signature of witness Ram Kishore Rai and Mritunjay Rai on seizure list (Ext. 3/2 to 3/3),

Jimmanama in writing and signature of Tilakdhari Rai (Ext.4), Injury report of Binod

Mahto, Darpan Mahto and Shanti Devi in writing and signature of Dr. Hridya Narayan

Singh (Ext. 5 to 5/2), Inquest report of deceased Bindo Mahto in writing of Rajendra

Singh S.I. and in writing of witness Hridya Narayan Singh (Ext.6), two requisitions of

Offficer-in-charge of Sarath (Ext. X and X/1), Writing and signature of Dr. K.P.Sharma

in postmortem report (Ext.7), Writing and signature of Dr. Kartik Prasad in postmortem

report of deceased Bindo Mahto (Ext. 7/1), Case diary in writing of Rajendra Prasad

Singh (Ext. 8), F.I.R. in writing and and signature of Rajendra Singh, Officer-in-charge

of Sarath Police Station (Ext. 9), Certified copy of the order in Misc. Case No. 112 of

1979-80 dated 02.11.1982 (Ext.10).

5. The statements of all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were

recorded and all the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstance in evidence

against them and in defence evidence examined D.W.1 Jai Deo Mahto, D.W.2- Dashrath

Mahto.

6. The learned Trial Court after hearing the argument and after appraisal of

the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

dated as stated hereinabove.

7. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, this

Cr. Appeal is preferred on the ground that there was no pre-meditation on the part of

the accused persons to commit the alleged offence which took place after sudden hot

altercation. The motive of the occurrence is alleged to be the litigation pertaining to

land dispute as such the applicants have been implicated in this case on account of

animosity. Injuries which the injured persons and deceased sustained are at variance

with the medical evidence. No independent witness of the occurrence was examined.

All the witnesses are related and interested witness as such their testimony cannot be

believed. Accordingly prayed to allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned

judgment of conviction passed against them and to acquit all the accused persons from

the charge levelled against them.

8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the

materials on records.

9. To decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of

conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court it is necessary to re-appreciate the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses oral as well as documentary which is reproduced

hereunder:-

P.W.1-Darpan Mahto is the injured eye-witness of the occurrence. In

his examination-in-chief stated that occurrence was of 10 years 4 months ago from that

day. Time was of morning of Saturday. He had gone to Mauza Sangramdih. Puran

Mahto, Hari Mahto, Arjun Mahto, Lakhi Mahto, Bharat Mahto, Dukhan Choudhary, Sakti

Mahto, Muni Mahto, Umapad Choudhary were reaping paddy crop. His agricultural field

of which Jamawandi number is 13 paddy crop was being reaped which had been planted

by him. Puran Mahto was armed with Ballam while other accused were armed with

Lathi. Thakur Mahto was also present at the place of occurrence. He had died. Hari

Mahto had also died. He along with his brother Girish Mahto, his nephew Bino Mahto

and niece Shanti Devi were there. All the accused persons were restrained to reap the

paddy crop. Thakur Mahto had instigated all the Assamis to assault them. On his

instigation Puram Mahto, Hari Mahto, and Arjun Mahto had assaulted to Girish Mahto.

Puran Mahto assaulted with Ballam to Girish Mahto. He fell down at the spot

and died. Bino Mahto was assaulted by Dukhan Choudhary, Lakhi Mahto and

Bharat Mahto with lathi. Bino fell down on the ground and became

unconscious who later on died. Muni Mahto, Sakti Mahto and Arjun Mahto

had also assaulted him with lathi. His niece was also assaulted by them. He was

medically examined. He recognized all the accused persons in the dock. The land was

recorded in the name of Dahru Mahto who died issueless. Pradhan of the village had

executed the settlement of the same in his favour. Girish Mahto was his brother. He

had also the title and possession of the same. He and Girish Mahto both had planted

paddy thereon. The land revenue was also being continuously paid of the same by

them. S.D.O. had also endorsed the settlement in their favour. In his cross-examination

this witness says he, Girish Mahto were of the joint family. Still they are in joint family.

At the time of Jamawandi No.13, he was 30 to 32 years old. The land

settled on the basis of the lease. S.D.O. had also mutated his name (Patta Dakhil). On

the very year of executing lease the S.D.O. had also endorsed the settlement order of

the same on his behalf. Amalnama receipts and the endorsement of S.D.O. had been

filed on record.

In Jamabandi No.13 of Sangramdih there were 8 kiyaries and the area of

the same was about eight bigha in which paddy had been planted. There is no house

of him in Sangramdih. They belonged to village Ratura which is 5 k.m. in north of

Sangramdih. They had to go to Sangramdih to plant paddy from their village Ratura.

On the very day of occurrence in all the eight Kiyaris paddy had been planted. All the

Assamis were reaping paddy which was unripe. Five persons were reaping the same.

Their lathis were placed at the Arrah and five persons were standing there who were

armed with Ballam while other were armed with lathi. Puran Mahto, Bharat Mahto, Sakti

Mahto, Lakhi Mahto and Dukhan Choudhary were not reaping the paddy. As they

opposed the reaping of the same, they began to assault them. First of all Puran

Mahto assaulted to Girish Mahto with Ballam which hit on his forehead. Hira

Mahto assaulted him with lathi 5 to 6 times on his head. One or two lathis were

also inflicted on his back. Girisih Mahto fell down on the ground. Thereafter Lakhi

Mahto also assaulted to Girisih who became unconscious and after half an

hour he died.

Bino Mahto came to rescue him, he was also assaulted by Arjun

Mahto on his head. Arjun Mahto had given 4 to 5 blow with lathi on the head

of Bino Mahto. Thereafter Puran Mahato also gave blow with Ballam which

hit on his head. He became unconscious. The other accused persons also assaulted

to Bino Mahto. Hari Mahto also assaulted on his back twice with lathi. Thakur Mahto did

not assault anyone. Lakhi Mahto also assaulted him with lathi on his back, thigh

and hand. Thereafter all Assamis also assaulted with lathi. Muni Mahto did not assault

him. He did not become unconscious. Satya Narayan Mahto and Laloo Mahto were

called and they were asked to inform the police. Lakhi Mahto also asked his daughter

to call Chowkidar. They reached to the police station at 6 or 7 O'clock of evening. Girish

Mahto and Bino Mahto were also carried by the vehicle to the Sarath Police Station and

reached there in between 10 to 11 O'clock of night. His fardbeyan was also recorded

on which he put his thumb impression. Bino Mahto was also taken to Sarath Hospital

and on Monday Bino Mhato died. On Sunday he had gone to the place of occurrence

with Daroga Ji.

10. P.W.2-Shanti Devi in her examination-in-chief has stated that Girish

Mahto was his father and Bino Mahto was his brother. The occurrence is of 10 years

four months ago. It was Saturday. Time was in between 8-9 O'clock of day. She had

gone to Sangramdih from the house of her father. Her father Girish Mahto, uncle Darpan

Mahto, brother Bino Mahto also had accompanied her to go to the agricultural field

which was of his father. Her father had planted paddy therein. Puran Mahto, Bharat

Mahto, Hari Mahto, Dukhan Choudhary, Muni Mahto, Sakti Mahto, Lakhi Mahto and

Arjun Mahto all were reaping the paddy which was planted by her father. Her father

Girish Mahto forbade them. Thakur Mahto instigated to assault her father. Puran Mahto,

Hari Mahto and Arjun Mahto assaulted to her father. Puran Mahto gave blow with Ballam

and rest two accused gave blow with lathi. Her father fell down on the ground on

account of sustaining injuries. She came to rescue her father. She was also assaulted

by Puran Mahto with lathi. Her father died there. Her brother Bino Mahto was also

assaulted by Dukhan Mahto and Lakhi Mahto with lathi. Bharat Mahto also

assaulted him with lathi. Bino Mahto became unconscious on account of

sustaining injury. Later on Bino died in Sarath Hospital. Her uncle was also

assaulted by Sakti Mahto, Muni Mahto and Arjun Mahto. She departed from Ratura at

8-9 O'clock of morning. At that time she was unmarried. As they reached to Sangramdih,

they saw that all the Assamis were reaping paddy which was unripe.

First of all her father Girish Mahto was assaulted by Arjun Mahto.

Her father fell down on the ground then Puran Mahto assaulted with Ballam twice.

Blood was also oozing. Thereafter Hari Mahto assaulted with Lathi on the

back. Hari Mahto also assaulted to her father after death. First of all her

brother Bino Mahto was also assaulted by Dukhan Mahto with lathi 8 to 10

times on the head. Thereafter Lakhi Mahto also assaulted to her brother on

the back. He assaulted once on the back with lathi. Thereafter Bharat Mahto also

assaulted with lathi. They also assaulted his Kaka (uncle). First of all Sakti Mahto

assaulted his uncle with lathi. He gave one lathi blow on the back of her uncle.

Muni Mahto assaulted with lathi twice on the back of her uncle. Uma Mahto

gave one lathi blow on the back of her uncle. She was given one lathi blow on her left

leg while the accused persons were assaulting to her father. She did not go to Sarath

rather she went to her house from there.

11. P.W.3 Satya Narayan Mahto in his examination-in-chief says that his

father was Pradhan of Mauza Sangramdih. He had died 13 years ago. Amalnama

(settlement) is in writing of his father. He identified his signature and writing Ext.1. 13

land revenue receipts are in writing and signature of his father. He recognized them

which has been marked as Ext. 2 to 2/12. It was Saturday (18.10.1975) of morning

Puran Mahto, Thakur Mahto, Hari Mahto, Dukhan Choudhary, Bharat Mahto, Sakti

Mahto, Lakhi Mahto, Muni Mahto, Arjun Mahto and Umapad Choudhary all were reaping

paddy in the agricultural field which was given to Girish Mahto and his brother by his

father in a settlement. Paddy had been planted by Girish Mahto therein which was

unripe. Darpan Mahto, Girish Mahto and Bino Mahto all the three forbade them. Puran

Mahto was armed with Ballam and others were armed with lathi. Puran Mahto and Hari

Mahto both assaulted with Ballam and lathi to Girish Mahto who died at the spot on

account of sustaining injury. Lakhi Mahto and Dukhan Mahto assaulted to Bino

Mahto with lathi. Bino Mahto became unconscious on account of sustaining

injury and later on died. Darpan was also assaulted by Arjun and Sakti with lathi. He

and Laloo Mahto both went to the Police Station and told to Daroga Ji in regard to the

occurrence. He also put his signature on the written information which has

been marked as Ext. 3. Inquest report was also prepared in his presence which has

been marked as Ext. 3/1.

In cross examination, this witness says land revenue was recovered by

Govt. officials till his father remained Pradhan. All the documents in his handwriting

came in his custody and he produced the same. No copy of Amalnama was kept with

him. His father never kept any record pertaining to the settlement of the land with him.

Dehru Mahto was Khatiyani raiyat. Sangramdih Mauza Jamabandi No.13 land was in

the name of Dehru Mahto. Part of this land was in possession of Assamis while the rest

in possession of Girish Mahto and Darpan Mahto in the Sangramdih. Total land was

three and half Bigha in which paddy was planted and in one and half Bigha was Bari.

When he reached at the place of occurrence one and half paddy had been reaped. He

had also seen the accused at the distance of 100 yard. Lathi and Ballam were placed in

the agricultural field while the Assamis were reaping the paddy. Darpan Mahto, Bino

Mahto and Girish Mahto forbade them to reap the paddy. Puran Mahto had lifted Ballam

and assaulted to Girish Mahto. He gave two blow of Ballam to Girish Mahto. Hari Mahto

had also given lathi blow to Girish Mahto. Bino was assaulted by Dukhan Mahto 6

to 7 times with lathi. Lakhi Mahto also assaulted with lathi on the head of

Bino Mahto. Darpan Mahto was also assaulted 3 to 4 times with lathi by Sakti Mahto.

12. P.W.4 Ram Kishore Rai in his examination-in-chief stated that he

known Thakur Mahto. He known Puran Mahto son of Thakur Mahto. Thakur Mahto had

died. Daroga Ji recovered lathi, Bhala and paddy from the house of Thakur Mahto 10

years ago. 70 sacks paddy was recovered. ¼ paddy was ripe and ¾ paddy was

unripe. Seizure memo of the same was prepared in his presence on which he and

Mritunjay both put their signature which has been marked as Ext. 3/2 and 3/3.

Jimmanama was in writing of his father marked as Ext.4.

13. P.W.5- Hriday Narayan Singh, Medical Officer, stated that on

18.10.1975 he was posted as Medical Officer at Sarath State Dispensary. He examined

Bindo Mahto, son of Girish Mahto and found the following injuries:

i. One incised wound 1"x 1/3"xbone deep on the posterior part of the scalp ii. One bruise 3 ½" x 1" on left side of scalp iii. One bruise 2 ½"x 1" on the right side of scalp

The injured was unconscious and condition was deteriorating fastly and

died on 20.10.75 at 9:30 A.M. Injury No.1 was simple and 2 and 3 were grievous as

they were dangerous to life. Injury No.1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon such as

edge of Bhala. Injury No.2 and 3 were caused by hard and blunt substance such as

lathi. Age of injuries within 24 hours at the time of examination.

On the same day at 10:30 p.m. He examined Darpan Mahto, son of

Kamo Mahto of the same village and found the following injuries:

i. One lacerated wound 1 ½"x ¼"x skin deep on the left leg. ii. One bruise 6"x1" on the right thigh.

iii. One bruise 1 ½"x ½" on the right hand.

All the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance

such as lathi. Age of injuries within 24 hours.

On 19.10.75 at 5 p.m. he examined Shanti Kumari, D/o Girish Mahto

and found the following injuries:

i. One bruise 3"x ½" on the upper part of the left leg.

Age of injuries within 48 hours. The injury was simple in nature caused

by hard and blunt substance. These injury reports were in his pen and bears his

signature. These injury reports has been marked as Ext. 5 to 5/2.

The inquest report was prepared by Rajendra Singh, S.I. of police in his

presence. He also signed as witness. This inquest report has been marked as Ext.6.

14. P.W.6-Dr. K.B.Sharma proved the postmortem report of Girish

Mahto and stated that on 19.10.1975 at 4:15 p.m. he conducted postmortem of Girish

Mahto and found the following ante-mortem injuries:

             i.    One lacerated wound 2" x ¼" x ¼" on the left side of scalp
                   on its middle third.
            ii.    One lacerated wound 1 ½" x ¼"x ¼" on the left side of
                   scalp on its posterior half.
            iii.   Two bruises 7"x ½" and 3" x ½" on the right side of back
                   on its lower three-fourth.
            iv.    One abrasion 1"x ½" on the right scapular region
             v.    One abrasion- 1"x ½" on the wind line of the back on its
                   lower half.

On dissection fracture of temporal bone on the left side under injury No.1.

In his opinion death was due to haemorrahage and shock. Injuries were sufficient

to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No.1 was itself sufficient

to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Weapon used was hard and blunt

substance. Injury No. I and II were possible by Ballam (hard and blunt substance) and

injury No. III, IV and V were possible by lathi. Time elapsed since death 30 hours. This

is the postmortem report which is in his pen and bears his signature. The postmortem

report has been marked as Ext.7.

Injuries No. II to V were simple in isolation. Injuries No. III and V were

not vital part of the body. All the six injuries can be caused by six separate blows. He

has not mentioned in the postmortem report that Injury No.1 was itself sufficient to

cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He did not find any blood clot or abrasion

of brain in the brain, as he has not mentioned in the postmortem report. Had he found

so, he would have mentioned in the postmortem report. Rigor mortis lasts 18 to 36

hours after death in summer in northern India and 24 to 48 hours in winter.

15. P.W.7-Dr. Kartik Prasad in his examination-in-chief has proved the

postmortem report of deceased Bindo Mahto and stated that on 20.10.1975 he was

posted as second Medical Officer, Deoghar Sub-Divisional Officer. On that day at 2 p.m.

he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Bindo Mahto and found the

following ante-mortem injuries:

             i.      Lacerated wound 1"x ½"x ¼" on the right side of scalp it
                     its middle third.
           ii.       Lacerated wound 1"x ¼"x ¼" on the right side of scalp 1"
                     behind Injury No.I.
           iii.      A bruise blue in colour 1"x ½" transverse on upper eye-
                     lid of left eye.

On dissection fracture of temporal bone on the right side under Injury

No.I. Nature of Injury No.1 was grievous. Death in his opinion was due to haemorrhage

and shock. Injury No. I was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature. Injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. Time

elapsed since death about six hours. This is the postmortem report which is in his pen

and bears his signature. This postmortem report has been marked as Ext. 7/1.

In cross-examination he has stated that Injury No.2 and 3 were simple in

nature. Abrasion can be caused by fall also. He has not mentioned in the postmortem

report that Injury No.I. was sufficient to cause death but he has mentioned that injuries

were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. I to III will

not be caused by one blow.

16. P.W.8- Shailendra Kumar was examined to prove the case diary Ext.

8 and F.I.R. Ext.9 as secondary evidence.

17. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the witness P.W.1

Darpan Mahto, P.W. 2-Shanti Devi are alleged to be eye-witness of the occurrence.

They are highly interested and related witness. Their testimony cannot be relied. So far

as the testimony of Satya Narayan Mahto is concerned this witness reached at the place

of occurrence later on as such he cannot be accepted as eye-witness though he has

lodged the written information on the basis of which F.I.R. was drawn. I.O. has not

been examined in this case. Non-examination of the I.O. is fatal to prosecution case.

The appellants have been convicted in this case on account of land animosity as the

litigation between the parties were pending. It is also further submitted that Appellant

No.1 Puran Mahto who was convicted for the murder of Girisih Mahto under Section

302 of the Indian Penal has died and his legal heirs did not come forward to pursue the

appeal on his behalf and as such appeal related to Appellant No.1 was abated.

So far as the Appellant No.5 Dukhan Mahto and Appellant No.3 Lakhi

Mahto is concerned both were convicted for the charge under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.5-Dukhan Mahto had died. No Legal

Representative came forward to pursue this appeal as the appeal relates to

Appellant No.5 was also abated.

Appellant No.3-Lakhi Mahto is 75 years old and so far as Appellant No.2-

Sakti Mahto and Appellant No.4-Arjun Mahto are concerned, both were convicted for

the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for their individual act at the

time of commission of offence. The learned Trial Court has not given its finding to

convict the Appellant-Lakhi Mahto with Appellant Dukhan Mahto for the offence under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in regard to constructive

liability whether the appellant had shared common intention with co-accused Dukhan

Mahto or not. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by

the court-below needs interference and contended to allow the appeal and to set aside

the conviction of the Appellant No.3-Lakhi Mahto, Appellant No.2-Sakti Mahto and

Appellant No.4-Arjun Mahto as well.

18. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. vehemently opposed the contention made by

the learned Counsel for the appellants and contended that the prosecution case is based

on direct evidence. The testimony of injured witness cannot be disbelieved. Testimony

of prosecution witness is cogent and trustworthy. This ocular evidence is also

corroborated with the medical evidence. There is no contradiction in statement of the

prosecution witness who were examined before the trial court and the statement given

to the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

It is also further submitted that even if the Trial Court has not given

finding in regard to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is sufficient evidence

on record to show common intention of the Appellant Lakhi Mahto and Appellant

Dukhan Mahto in commission of murder of Bindo Mahto and contended to dismiss the

appeal and to affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

19. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence. The injured

eye-witness of the occurrence are P.W.1-Darpan Mahto, P.W.2-Shanti Devi.

P.W.1-Darpan Mahto in his statement has stated that on the date of occurrence, the

accused persons Puran Mahto, Hari Mahto, Arjun Mahto, Lakhi Mahto, Bharat Mahto,

Dukhan Choudhary, Sakti Mahto, Muni Mahto and Uma Pad Choudhary were reaping

paddy crop which was grown by him and his brother Girisih Mahto in Mauza

Sangramdih. Along with him his brother Girish Mahto, his nephew Bindo Mahto and his

niece Shanti Devi forbade the accused persons to reap paddy crop. On this Puran

Mahto, Hari Mahto and Arjun Mahto assaulted to Girisih Mahto. Puran Mahto

had assaulted with Ballam and he died at the spot. Bindo Mahto was also

assaulted by Dukhan Choudhary, Lakhi Mahto and Bharat Mahto. He became

unconscious and later on died. He was also assaulted by Muni Mahto, Sakti Mahto

and Arjun Mahto with lathi while his niece Shanti Devi was also assaulted. This witness

also stated that the land in question was handed over by the Pradhan under a

settlement to him and his brother Girish Mahto. Settlement was also endorsed by the

S.D.O. This land was in Jamabandi No.13. In the eight Kiyaris paddy was grown up by

them out of which 1½ kiyari was reaped by the accused persons. On being forbidden

by him and his brother and nephew as well, accused persons assaulted them. Ballam

and Lathi were also placed in the very agricultural field where they were

reaping the crop. This witness also stated in his cross-examination that Lakhi Mahto

has also assaulted to Girisih Mahto. This witness has stated that Lakhi also assaulted

him with lathi which hit on his back, thigh and hand as well. At the time of

occurrence, he, Bindo, Girisih and Shanti were there. Satya Narayan Mahto

and Laloo Mahto were called later on who informed to the Sarath Police

Station in regard to occurrence. Bindo was taken to Sarath Hospital where he died

on Monday.

The injury report of this witness is proved by P.W.5 Dr. Hriday

Narayan Singh and stated that on 18.10.1975 at 10:30 he examined Darpan Mahto

and found the following injuries:

i. One lacerated wound 1 ½"x ¼"x skin deep on the left leg. ii. One bruise 6"x1" on the right thigh.

iii. One bruise 1 ½"x ½" on the right hand.

All the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance

such as lathi. Age of injuries within 24 hours.

P.W.2- Shanti Devi is also injured eye-witness of the occurrence.

This witness in her examination-in-chief says that she along with her father Girish

Mahto, uncle Darpan Mahto and brother Bindo Mahto had gone to agricultural field

where her father had grown paddy crop. Puran Mahto, Bharat Mahto, Hari Mahto,

Dukhan Choudhary, Muni Mahto, Sakti Mahto, Uma Choudhary, Thakur Mahto, Lakhi

Mahto and Arjun Mahto had been reaping the paddy crop which was grown up by her

father. On being opposed the same, on instigation of Thakur Mahto; Puran Mahto, Hari

Mahto and Arjun Mahto assaulted her father Girish Mahto. Puran Mahto gave blow

with Ballam while other two Hari Mahto and Arjun Mahto gave lathi blow to

her father. She came to rescue. She was also assaulted by these accused

persons. Puran Mahto had also assaulted to her father. Her father died at the spot.

Bindo Mahto was assaulted by Dukhan Mahto and Lakhi Mahto with lathi.

Bharat Mahto also assaulted to Bindo Mahto with lathi. Bindo Manto became

unconscious and fell down. He was rushed to Sadar Hospital where he died.

Her uncle Darpan Mahto was also assaulted by Sakti, Muni and Arjun. This witness in

her cross-examination says that Lathi and Ballam were kept in the very agricultural field

where the paddy crop was being reaped by the accused persons. Puran Mahto has

given two Ballam blow to her father Girish Mahto. Hari Mahto also assaulted with lathi

on his back. Arjun Mahto also assaulted his father. Thereafter they began to assault her

brother Bindo Mahto. Dukhan Mahto had given 8 to 10 lathi blow which hit on his

forehead while Lakhi Mahto had assaulted on his back. Bharat also assaulted with lathi

to Bindo Mahto. Sakti Mahto, Muni Mahto and Umapad Mahto had assaulted to his uncle

with lathi. When her father was being assaulted, the accused persons had also assaulted

her with lathi which hit on her leg. Only one lathi blow was given to her.

Injury report of this witness is proved by P.W.5-Hridya Narayan

Singh. This witness says that on 19.10.1975 at 5 p.m. he examined Shanti Devi,

daughter of Girish Mahto and found the following injuries:

i. One bruise 3" x ½" on the upper part of the left leg.

Age of injuries within 48 hours. The injury was simple in nature caused

by hard and blunt substance. These injury reports are in his pen and bears his signature.

These injury reports are marked as Ext. 5 to 5/2.

This inquest report was prepared by Rajendra Singh S.I. of police in

his presence. He also singed as witness. The inquest report is marked as Ext.6.

Injury report of injured Bindo Mahto is proved by P.W.5 Dr. Hriday

Narayan Singh. He examined Bindo Mahto on 18.10.1975 and found the following

injuries:

i. One incised wound 1"x 1/3"xbone deep on the posterior part of the scalp ii. One bruise 3 ½" x 1" on left side of scalp iii. One bruise 2 ½"x 1" on the right side of scalp

The injured was unconscious and condition was deteriorating. He died on

20.10.1975 at 9:30 p.m. and the injury No.1 was simple in nature while 2 and 3 were

grievous as they were dangerous to life. Injury No.1 was caused by sharp edged

weapon such as edge of Bhala. Injury No.2 & 3 were caused by hard and blunt

substance such as lathi. Age of injuries within 24 hours at the time of examination.

Postmortem report of this deceased Bindo Mahto has been proved

by Dr. Kartik Prasad-P.W.7. This witness conducted postmortem on the dead body

of Bindo Mahto on 20.10.1975 and found the following ante-mortem injuries:

i. Lacerated wound 1"x ½"x ¼" on the right side of scalp in its middle third.

ii. Lacerated wound 1"x ¼"x ¼" on the right side of scalp 1"

behind Injury No.1.

iii. A bruise blue in colour 1"x ½" traverse on upper eye-lid of left eye.

On dissection fracture of temporal bone on the right side under Injury

No.1. Nature of injury No.1 was grievous. Death in his opinion was due to haemorrhage

and shock. Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature. Injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. Time

elapsed since death within six hours. This is the postmortem report which is in his pen

and bears his signature. This postmortem report is marked as Ext.7/1.

Injury No. 2 and 3 were simple in nature. Abrasion can be caused by fall

also. He has not mentioned in the postmortem report that Injury No.1 was sufficient to

cause death but he has mentioned that injuries were sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. Injury No. I to III will not be caused by one blow.

From the injury report of Bindo Mahto Ext.5 and postmortem

report of Bindo Mahto Ext. 7/1 it is evident that there were three injuries.

Injury No.1 was lacerated wound 1"x ½"x ¼" on the right side of scalp in its middle

third and the Injury No.2 was the lacerated wound 1"x ¼"x ¼" on the right side of

scalp 1" behind Injury No. I. and Injury No.3 was a bruise blue in colour 1"x ½"x

transverse on upper eye-lid of left eye. Injury No.1 in Injury report as well as in

postmortem report was grievous in nature and were sufficient in ordinary

course to cause death. As per statement of eye-witness account P.W.1 Darpan

Mahto and P.W.2 Shanti Devi who are injured eye-witness it was Lakhi Mahto

and Dukhan Mahto who had assaulted to Bindo Mahto. From the testimony of

the injured eye-witness P.W.1-Darpan Mahto and P.W. 2- Shanti Devi it is proved that

both Dukhan Mahto and Lakhi Mahto had assaulted to Bindo Mahto.

20. The intention of both the accused persons was to commit murder of Bindo

Mahto by inflicting injuries with lathi. The conduct of these accused persons reflects

sharing the common intention in committing murder of Bindo Mahto who became

unconscious at the spot at the very time and after two days of the occurrence in the

Hospital he died. Immediate cause of death were ante-mortem injuries as per opinion

of P.W.7 Dr. Kartik Prasad who had proved the postmortem report of deceased Bindo

Mahto. As such both the accused Lakhi Mahto and Dukhan Mahto both armed with Lathi

had given the blow with lathi on vital part and other parts of body of deceased Bindo

Mahto reflect their common intention to commit murder of Bindo Mahto who having

become unconscious on account of sustaining injuries fell down on the ground and later

on died during treatment on the very next day. Here it is not material which one of the

two Dukhan Mahto and Lakhi Mahto had given more lathi blow to deceased Bindo Mahto

and it is not the requirement of the law to ascertain that the blow inflicted by which

one of the two accused had become proximate cause of death of deceased.

In the case in hand the appellant Dukhan Mahto along with co-accused

Puran Mahto, Sakti Mahto, Lakhi Mahto, Arjun Mahto were present at the place of

occurrence which is the paddy field where the other Assamis were harvesting the paddy

crop which was grown by the deceased Girish Mahto and P.W.1 Darpan Mahto which

was received by them under a settlement from the then Pradhan of the village being

declared the Fouti land. The possession of the very land was intervened by the accused

persons. The crop which was grown up was of deceased and victim side was being

harvested forcibly while the other five including the appellant armed with lathi and Bhala

were present at the paddy field as Darpan and Girisih Mahto opposed the harvesting of

the paddy crop at the instigation of Thakur Mahto all the five including appellants who

were armed with lathi and Bhala as well respectively assaulted to Girisih Mahto. Puran

Mahto had given repeated blow with Bhala to Girish Mahto. Lakhi Mahto and other

accused were also given lathi blow to Girisih Mahto who died at the spot while Dukhan

Mahto and appellant Lakhi Mahto had assaulted to Bindo Mahto who came to rescue his

father. The assault given with the lathi blow to Bindo Mahto was so fatal that Bindo

Mahto became unconscious at the spot and later on died in the Hospital on the very

next day. Even P.W.1- Darpan Mahto and P.W.2 Shanti Devi the injured eye-witnesses

who came to rescue were also assaulted by the accused persons who sustained injuries.

Their injury report is also proved by the Doctor who conducted the medical examination.

Thereafter all the accused persons left the place of occurrence. As such it is evident

from the evidence on record that all the accused persons including the appellant Lakhi

Mahto, Sakti Mahto and Arjun Mahto came together along with other co-accused armed

with lathi and Bhala respectively at the place of occurrence. The motive of all of them

was to harvest the paddy crop which was grown up by deceased Girish Mahto and P.W.-

1 Darpan Mahto. On being opposed, all in furtherance of common intention assaulted

with the weapons in their hands. Being armed with deadly weapons reflected their

common intention to cause murder on resisting the harvesting of paddy crop and

inflicting injuries with lahti and Bhala also reflected their common intention and

thereafter committing murder of Girish Mahto at the spot and also inflicting fatal injury

to Bindo Mahto and injuries to other injured persons. All the accused persons left the

place of occurrence shows the sharing of common intention to commit murder.

Therefore, the appellant Lakhi Mahto along with co-accused Dukhan Mahto who died

during the pendency of the appeal shared the common intention in commission of

murder of Bindo Mahto.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Thoti Manohar vrs. State of Andhra

Pradesh", reported in 2012 (78) A.C.C. 511 S upreme Court has held:

"For common intention under Section 34 of I.P.C. the previous meeting of mind, Pre-arranged plan or pre-concert is very difficult to establish by way of direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the conduct of the accused at the place of occurrence and the circumstances and facts of each case."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of Rajasthan vrs. Gurubachan

Singh", reported in 2022 Live Law Supreme Court 1028 has observed in para 11 as

under:

"Para 11.... Section 34 I.P.C. makes a co-perpetrator who had participated in offence equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 of I.P.C. to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design. Common intention can be formed at the spur of moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact as such direct evidence normally will not be available. Therefore in most cases whether or not there exist a common intention has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. Constructive intention can be arrived at only when the Court

can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of common intention."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of U.P. vrs. Atul Singh", reported in

A.I.R. 2009 S.C. page 2713 has held:

"Section 34 is a Rule of evidence. It does not create substantive offence. Such intention can be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case, meeting of minds of all accused persons to commit the offence must be established not necessary to show the overt act on part of the each accused"

21. So far as testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who are related witness, are

concerned their presence at the place of occurrence is not doubted at all. No

contradiction could be drawn in the examination of this witness on behalf of defence.

Their testimony is in consonance of their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In cross-

examination no contradiction could be drawn in the testimony of these witnesses but

the statement of both the witnesses is also in consonance of each other to narrate the

prosecution story. The testimony of these witnesses cannot be disbelieved moreso

injured witness will never shield the real culprit.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat

Reddy & Ors.", reported in Cri.L.J. 2013 (4) 4618 has held:

"The evidence of an interested witness cannot be disbelieved merely because they are related to each other or to the deceased."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Vijay Shankar Shinde and Ors. vrs. State

of Maharastra", reported in A.I.R. 2008 SC 1198 has held:

"Testimony of injured eye-witness hold more credence- normally he would not shield real culprit."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Shivappa and Ors. vrs. State of Karnataka

& Anr.", reported in AIR 2008 SC 1860 has held:

"Minor discrepancies or some improvements- Would not justify rejection of their testimonies, otherwise reliable- Some discrepancies are bound to occur because of sociological background of witness as also time gap between date of occurrence."

22. So far as some minor variance in the testimony of these injured eye-

witness and the medical evidence is concerned though some exaggeration in the

testimony of the eye-witness yet the same is natural not found material or fatal to the

prosecution case. On the material point there is no variance in the ocular

evidence and the medical evidence.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh &

Ors.", reported in (2011) 7 SCC 421 has held:

"......contradiction between ocular and medical evidence, the position of law in this regard is that the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à- vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular evidence improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved."

23. So far as testimony of P.W.3-Satya Narayan Mahto is concerned

though he is not the eye-witness of the occurrence but he reached at the place of

occurrence. Later on he was told in regard to the occurrence by the injured eye-witness

P.W.1- Darpan Mahto and P.W.2- Shanti Devi. He also found Girish Mahto injured and

dead and also found Bindo Mahto in unconscious condition and also found injured eye-

witness Darpan Mahto-P.W.1 and P.W.2-Shanti Devi who told in regard to the

occurrence which was committed by the accused persons who were also seen by this

witness at the place of occurrence leaving the place of occurrence after committing

the offence. As such testimony of this witness P.W.3-Satya Narayan Mahto is

also admissible as Res Gestae evidence though he had not seen the accused

persons assaulting the deceased Girish Mahto and Bindo Mahto and also the

injured witnesses Darshan Mahto and Shanti Devi yet he came to know in

regard to occurrence from the injured eye-witness P.W.1 and P.W.2 who

were also examined on behalf of the prosecution and narrated the

prosecution story in regard to occurrence in what manner and in what way

the accused persons had committed the alleged offence. Therefore, testimony

of this witness also became admissible in evidence.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bhairon Singh vrs. State of M.P.",

reported in A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 2603 has held:

"The Rule embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. It implies a facts which though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" becomes relevant by itself.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of M.P. vrs. Ramesh & Ors" reported

in 2011 (2) SCC Cri. 493 has held:

" Res gestae- Hearsay evidence- Exception to the general rule, when hearsay evidence becomes admissible-P.W.1 eyewitness immediately after occurrence went to P.W.2 and informed him- Thus, statement of P.W.2 indicating that P.W.1 had come to him and told him that her father was beaten by R with the help of her mother, is admissible."

In the case in hand that P.W.3 Satya Narayan Mahto has stated that as he

reached at the place of occurrence, he had seen the accused persons assaulting Bindo

Mahto, Shanti Devi and Darpan Mahto as well. He had watched the occurrence at some

distance yet on reaching at the place of occurrence the injured eye-witness P.W.1 and

P.W.2 had told about the occurrence which he has categorically narrated in his

statement. Therefore, the testimony of this witness becomes admissible under

Section 6 of the Evidence Act and thoroughly corroborates the testimony of

injured eye-witness P.W.1-Darpan Mahto and P.W.2-Shanti Devi. As such

submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that testimony of this witness is

hearsay is not sustainable.

24. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the I.O. in this

case was not examined and the weapon which were used in commission of the offence

were not seized and same were not recovered and same sent so as to establish that the

injuries were inflicted to the deceased and injured persons as narrated by the injured

eye-witness. Admittedly I.O. was not examined on behalf of prosecution and the weapon

with which the deceased were inflicted injuries and injured were also assaulted were not

recovered but the prosecution case is based on direct evidence. In case of a direct

evidence recovery of the weapon with which the deceased or injured were

assaulted is not material if the testimony of the injured eye-witness is found

cogent, trustworthy and reliable. There is no contradiction in the testimony

of the injured eye-witness P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also testimony of the witness

P.W.3 what they have stated before the Trial Court and their statement

recorded by the I.O. during investigation. As per inquest report of both the

deceased and the place of occurrence is also agricultural field in Sangramdih where the

paddy crop was being reaped and the dead body of Girish Mahto was found and the I.O.

has also collected the blood stained soil and also paddy crop which was reaped. Seizure

memo of the same was also prepared though the blood stained soil was not sent to the

F.S.L. for its chemical examination. In view of the evidence adduced on behalf of

prosecution non-examination of the I.O. is not found fatal to the prosecution

case.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bihari Rai vrs. State of Bihar (now

Jharkhand)", reported in (2008) 15 SCC 778 has held:

"Non-examination of the Investigating Officer-But I.O. had only conducted the inquest-Inquest report was exhibited without any objection and there was no challenge to correctness of the report-Held, non-examination of I.O. did not corrode credibility of prosecution version."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and

others vs. State of Punjab," reported in 2004 Cri.L.J.,1807 in paragraph nos. 5,6

and 7 has held as under:

"5. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. (See Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P.: (1995) 5 SCC 518).

6. In Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar: (1999) 2 SCC 126 it was held that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or because of negligence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party.

7. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors.: (1998) 4 SCC 517, if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. The view as again reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 518. As noted in Amar Singh's case (supra) it would have been certainly better if the firearms were sent to the Forensic Test Laboratory for comparison. But the report of the Ballistic Expert would be in the nature of an expert opinion without any conclusiveness attached to it. When the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical

evidence fully establishes the prosecution version failure or omission of negligence on part of the I.O. cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version."

25. Learned Counsel for the applicant also contended that appellant No.3 Lakhi

Mahto is 75 years old, Arjun Mahto is 75 years old and Sakti Mahto is 60 years old and

this appeal has been pending since 1993 and the appellants are on bail while the Trial

Court had convicted some of the accused attributing specific role without aid of Section

149 of I.P.C. and had convicted Lakhi Mahto along with Dukhan Mahto for the offence

under Section 302 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. keeping in view the age

of the appellants contended to acquit all the accused persons. This contention of learned

Counsel for the applicant is not sustainable since the occurrence is of the year 1975 and

the conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed on 09.07.1993. This appeal

was admitted in the year 1993 and same remained pending till 2023 as such more than

about 30 years have lapsed the appellants despite conviction are enjoying the bail and

are out of the jail and the appellant No.3 despite sentence of life imprisonment is

enjoying the bail for last 30 years without serving out the sentence it is in itself travesty

of justice that this appeal was pending for last 30 years as such on this ground this

Court is of considered view that no leniency can be shown to the appellants on the

ground that they are old age.

26. In view of re-appreciation of evidence on record as shown hereinabove,

the prosecution case is found proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are

of the considered view that the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellants

needs no interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the

impugned judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed.

27. So far as sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is concerned, from

the impugned order it is found that the learned Trial Court had sentenced the appellant-

accused with rigorous imprisonment for life, and had not imposed fine which was

mandatory in view of the punishment as provided under Section 302 of the I.P.C. This

omission on the part of trial court is being cured by this Appellate Court and the fine of

Rs.5,000/- is also imposed to the convict/appellant along with rigorous life

imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court. Up to this extent, sentence passed by the

Trial Court stood modified.

28. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.

29. Appellant No.3-Lakhi Mahto was on bail during the pendency of this appeal,

his bail bond is hereby cancelled. The Trial Court is directed to ensure compliance by

sending the appellant No.3 to Jail and to secure recovery of fine.

30. Let the record of the trial court be sent along with copy of the judgment.

31. So far as the sentence passed by the Trial Court to Appellant No.2-Shakti

Mahto and Appellant No.4-Arjun Mahto for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian

Penal Code is concerned, the same is modified imposing fine of Rs.1,000/- each in place

of one year simple imprisonment.

      I agree                                         (Sujit Narayan Prasad,J.)


Sujit Narayan Prasad,J.


                                                      (Subhash Chand,J.)


Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 07.02.2023
P.K.S./A.F.R.