Gangadhar Mahato @ Langra Mahato vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the State.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24-.05.2002 and order of sentence dated 28.05.2002 passed by Prabhu Nath Lal, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 198 of 2001 by which judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant Gangadhar Mahato @ Langra Mahato guilty u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

It is important to note that on the basis of F.I.R. given to the police station on 18.10.2000 by the son of deceased informant Subhash Mahato that on 02.10.2000 the accused Gangahar Mahato came to his house and asked his father Soren Mahato to accompany him the village Kuchai for some work and under the conversation he left the home. On the next day he did not returned then he started searching him and went to the accused Langra Mahato who had taken him but he stated that he had got some important work and he will return in 5-6 days but he did not returned even after 5-6 days then he again searched but failed and hence he lodged the information that they have got suspicion that Gangahar Mahato had taken his father and abducted him for some illegal purpose

On the basis of said F.I.R. police registered a case u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently during investigation added Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant as also against accused Langra Munda and Khela Ram Mahato under Sections 364/302/34 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and finally the case was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikiella who found the appellant guilty as aforesaid. It is important to note that during investigation on the basis of confession of the accused Gangadhar Mahato that he along with co-accused and Langra Munda and Khela Ram Mahato after taking the accused from his house committed the murder in Damagiri dam and thereafter disposed the dead body at Karkatta dam that the case was registered under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet was submitted.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that after trial since the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances that the murder was committed under the conspiracy by Khela Ram Mahato, Langra Munda and Gangadhar Mahato. The Trial Court acquitted two accused Langra Munda and Khela Ram Mahato but wrongly convicted the appellant u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code and hence the appellant may be acquitted from the charges.

On the other hand learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is overwhelming evidence that the appellant Gangadhar Mahato came to the house of the deceased on 02.10.2000 and on the pretext of some work took him to village Kuchai by force and subsequently he disclosed that under conspiracy of Khela Ram Mahato and Langra Munda he had taken him to village Kuchai where the deceased Soren Mahato was murdered by Langara Munda and Khela Ram Mahato. Thereafter, the body was disposed of at Karkatta dam. Hence, only because the chain was not complete the other appellant were acquitted and then appellant was also acquitted from the charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court has also after further consideration found the appellant guilty u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code which is well founded and requires no interference by this Court.

After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that during trial prosecution has examined nine witnesses P.W.I is Sudhir Kumar Mahato, P.W. 2 is Raibu Mahato and P.W. 4 is Durain Mahato, P.W. 5 is Sureswari Devi P.W. 8 is Pradeep Kumar Mahato and P.W. 9 is Devendra Tripathy who is the I.O. of the case. It appears that the informant P.W. 7 has fully supported the prosecution case as given by him ''in the F.I.R. He stated in Court that on 02.10.2000 at 12.00 in the afternoon the appellant Gangadhar Mahato @ Langra Mahato came to his house and at that time his other brothers Pradeep Kumar Mahato, Gajraj Mahato and Sudhir Mahato were also present in the house. The accused Gangadhar Mahato asked his father to accompany him to village Kuchai for some important work. However, his father did not returned oh the next date then he went to the house of the Gangadhar Mahato then Gangadhar Mahato stated that his father will return after 4-5 days since he has got some work. But his father did not returned after 5 days then they started searching and again asked Gangadhar Mahato then Gangadhar Mahato evasively replied and ran away. Then he went to police station and gave his written report. He identified his writing and signature and written report which was marked as Ext-2. Subsequently, police arrested the accused Langra Munda and Langra Mahato and they confessed in their presence that in connivance with Khela Ram Mahato he committed the murder of deceased Soren Mahato near Damagiri bandh and threw the dead body in Karkatta dam.

On the basis of their confession police went to Damagiri Raja bandh and on the place shown by the accused. Blood stain cloth was recovered and seizure list was prepared. Thereafter, at the instance of accused police went to Karkatta dam and there recovered his Paijama and sando ganji and seizure list was prepared in their presence which he signed. He identified his signature on the same. In his cross-examination he stated that on the date of occurrence there was ''haat'' at village Kuchai and they had also gone to the ''haat'' and his father was taken by the accused to Kuchai.

It appears from the evidence that all other members who are also the member of the same house were present at the time when the accused came to the house on Monday on 02.10.2000. P.W. 1 Sudhir Kumar Mahato. P.W.2 Raibu Mahato, P.W.3 Gajraj Mahato, P.W. 4 Durain Mahato and P.W. 5 Sureswri Devi all have stated that on 02.10.2000 the accused Gangadhar Mahato came to their house and persuaded the deceased Soren Mahato to accompany him for some work to village Kuchai and the deceased left home and thereafter when police arrested the accused Gangadhar Mahato and Langra Munda then they confessed that at the instance of accused Khela Ram Mahato, the appellant Gangadhar had taken him to village Kuchai from where he was taken to the Damagiri Raja bandh and murdered and subsequently dead body was thrown in the bandh. Even the I.O. P.W.9 has stated in his evidence at Para 3 that on 27.10.2000 he arrested the accused appellant Gangadhar Mahato who confessed his guilt and on the basis of confession that he committed the murder of deceased Soren Mahato when he went to Raja bandh. As per the instance of the accused blood stain cloth was recovered and subsequently his paijama was recovered from the dam at the instance of appellant and Langra Munda. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant at the instance of co-accused came to the house of the deceased and abducted him for the purpose of murder. Although, since of evidence was not complete and blood stain cloth which was sent for chemical examination report was not produced by the prosecution that the paijama was put on T.I.P. and as such since sufficient evidence to convict the appellant guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was not available. The appellants and others were acquitted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court convicted the appellant Gangadhar only u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code. I find no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the appellant was rightly found guilty u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of evidence as per the discussion made above I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and Trial Court is directed to issue warrant of arrest for serving out his sentence.