Jharkhand High Court

Kishun Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2025

                     Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 506 of 2006
[Against the judgment dated 27th March, 2007 and order of conviction and
sentence dated 29th March, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Hazaribagh]


1. Kishun Mahto, son of Ghano Mahto,
2. Kauleshwar Mahto, son of Ghano Mahto,
3. Dwarika Mahto, Son of Gaman Mahto.
    All residents of village-Jatghaghra, P.S. Barkatha, District-Hazaribagh.
                                                        ....       Appellants
                                    Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                              ....      Respondent
                                    With
                     Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 471 of 2006
1. Jaglal Mahto, son of Late Chito Mahto,
2. Fulagi Mahto, son of Jeewan Mahto,
3. Arjun Yadav @ Mahto, son of late Prayag Mahto,
4. Joba Mahto, son of Nanhaku Mahto.
   All residents of village Jatghaghra, P.S. Barkatha, District-Hazaribagh.
                                                          .... Appellants
                                    Versus
   The State of Jharkhand                                    ..... Respondent
                      PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                          --------
For the Appellants        : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Adv.

For the Respondent        : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
                               ---------


                              JUDGMENT

By Court:-

Dated:-12.02.2025

1. Heard learned counsel for appellants Ms. Chandana Kumari as well as

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr. Sanjay

Kumar Srivastava.

Page | 1

2. Since these appeals arises out of common judgment and order of

conviction and sentence, hence are being heard and disposed of by

common judgment.

3. It appears from the record that these appeals so far the appellants Jagdish

Mahto, Khago Mahto, Chaman Mahto and Babu Mahto @ Yadav in

Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 471 of 2006 and Basudeo Mahto in Cr. Appeal (SJ)

No. 506 of 2006 are concerned, have been abated vide order dated

09.06.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court.

4. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction

dated 27th March, 2007 and sentence dated 29th March, 2006 for the

offence under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. passed in

Sessions Trial Case No. 146 of 1998 passed by learned 1st Additional

Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the appellants have

been held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. of five years along with

fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and six months

simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 323 of

the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation and

both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

5. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals as per F.I.R. lodged on the

basis of fardbeyan of the informant stating inter alia that on 25.10.1996

at about 06:00 A.M., in the morning, accused persons along with others

armed with lathi, tangi, iron rod reached at the paddy field of the

informant and tried to harvest the paddy crop, meanwhile informant

along with other members reached at the spot and upon protest, accused

persons started abusing in filthy language to the informant and others.

Upon the instigation of Jagdish Mahto (since deceased), other accused

persons attacked on the informant party by lathi, tangi, bricks, stones and

Page | 2 iron rod and started assaulting the informant party. On raising alarm by

the informant party, the co-villagers assembled there and tried to pacify

the matter and saved the informant party.

On the basis of above fardbeyan an F.I.R. was registered as Barkatha

P.S. Case No. 56/96 and after due investigation charge-sheet was

submitted under Sections, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 of the I.P.C.

The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the accused

persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued and submitted

that there were case and counter-case due to land dispute between the

parties. In the instant case altogether 25 persons were put for trial in S.T.

Case No. 146/1998 and out of them 11 accused persons were acquitted

and only 14 accused persons were convicted for the offences under

Sections 307, 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. and all were directed to

undergo R.I. for five years under Section 307 along with a fine of

Rs.500/- and S.I. for a period of six months for the offence under

sections 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. It is

further submitted that there was exchange of assault from both parties

without any intention or knowledge as required to constitute offence of

under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Informant party have sustained simple

injuries while from the side of the appellants party one person was

murdered in the said occurrence. The conviction and sentence of the

appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely

not warranted under law in the proved facts and circumstances, which is

liable to be set aside. For the rest of the offences, the appellants have

been sentenced to undergo only six months imprisonment along with fine

of Rs.500/- each. It is further submitted that during trail of the case, they

Page | 3 have already remained in custody about one month and odd days and

have sufficiently been punished for their guilt.

7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has defended

the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial court has

very wisely and aptly considered the materials available on record and

has rightly concluded about guilt of the appellants. It further submitted

that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling

for any interference in this appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be

dismissed.

8. For better appreciation of rival contentions of the parties, brief appraisal

of evidence led by the prosecution is required to be discussed here:-

P.W.6:-Dwarka Sao is the most important witness and informant of this

case. According to his evidence that the accused persons by forming

unlawful assembly with other co-accused persons armed with lathi,

tangi, bricks and iron rod reached in the field of paddy crops and started

cultivating his field and upon protest the informant party was brutally

assaulted by the accused persons.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the murder charge of the

main accused namely Prayag Mahto is going on against him and also

admits that there is land dispute between them. He further admits that the

land belongs to him and he has the copy of the order of the competent

court related to this land, but he has not shown the copy of the decree to

the police.

P.W.1:- Ram Prasad Paswan is the eye witness of this case, according

to his evidence, he saw 26 persons armed with lethal weapons were

assaulting the informant party. He further stated that he has identified the

injured, Prayag Sao who sustained head and leg injuries.

Page | 4 In his cross-examination, this witness admits that there was a land

dispute between the parties and denied the suggestion that he is giving

false statement against the appellants.

P.W.2:- Basudeo Yadav is also an eye witness of this case. He admits

that he has seen 26 persons were going towards the field of the

informant, who were armed with lathi, tangi, bricks and iron rods and

assault took place between both the parties.

In his cross-examination, he has also admitted that there was land

dispute between the parties and also admitted that the accused Prayag

Mahto was also injured in the aforesaid incident and became

unconscious at the place of occurrence.

P.W.3:- Dulari Yadav, is also an eye witness of the occurrence, and

supported the statements given by the P.W.1 and P.W.2.

P.W.7 Ajadi Rami, is the investigating Officer of this case. He has

proved the fardbeyan of the informant which is marked as Exhibit 3. In

the course of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence and has

recorded the statement of the witnesses. The injured persons were sent to

hospital for medical treatment. He further admitted that accused Prayag

Mahto was also injured in the incident and total twelve members of the

prosecution were injured and hospitalized. After conclusion of

investigation, he submitted charge-sheet.

P.W.5 Dr. Bindra Ram, was posted as C.A.S. at Primary Heath Centre,

Barkatha and examined the injured persons and found following

injuries:-

Injury to Prayag Sonar:- Two lacerated wounds on the head- 21/2"x

1/2" x 1/4" and 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" and two swellings on the right leg 6" x

2" and 6" x 3". The injuries are caused by hard and blunt object.

Page | 5 Injury to Dwarka Sao:-

Two lacerated wounds on the head (2-1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4") and (3" x

1/2" x 1/4")swelling on the forearm (4" x 2"), ankle (4"x2"), and leg

(4" x 2"). The injuries are simple in nature and cause by hard and blunt

object.