Parmanand Mahto vs State of Bihar

Akhilesh Chandra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The solitary appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offences u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years, as awarded on 29th January 2000, by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in connection with Session Trial No. 248/98/18/99 arising out of Bakhari P.S. Case No. 26/98, initially instituted for the offences u/s 376 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant who by same judgment has been acquitted from the charge u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution has come out with a case Mahto recorded on 8th May 1998 at 14 hours by Sub-Inspector, S.N. Choudhary (P.W. 8) at village Udaypur, that informant''s daughter Gita Devi was married with one Mahendra Mahto son and brother of respectively P.W. 2 Bahore Mahto and P.W. 3 Narain Mahto, roughly 7 to 8 years ago and 3 to 4 years after marriage a female child namely Abhilasha aged about three years was born and husband of the deceased had gone out of State in connection with his livelihood and deceased has been regularly visiting informant''s place, suddenly, at about 11.00 a.m. the informant could learnt from Bishun Mahto (not examined) about illness of his daughter (deceased), immediately he rushed and found her burnt dead. P.W. 2 namely, Bahore Mahto was sitting behind and on query intimated that deceased was subjected to rape by the appellant (neighbour) and in such a same condition she was committed suicide.

The appellant has faced trial in both the offences, to substantiate the charges prosecution produced the following documents besides examining eight witnesses:

Exhibit 1 - Inquest report of Geeta Devi.

Exhibit 1/1 - Signature of Chandradeo Mahto on Fard-e-beyan

Exhibit 1/2 - Signature of Chandradeo Mahto on seizure list.

Exhibit 2 - writing and signature of Dr. Vinay Kumar on Post mortem report.

Exhibit 3 - Signature of S.I. Sachidanand Choudhary on Fard-e-beyan.

Exhibit 4 - Signature of S.I. Sachidanand Choudhary on formal F.I.R.

Exhibit 5 - Signature of S.I. Sachidanand Choudhary on inquest report.

Out of whom, P.W. 1 namely, Uchit Lal Mahto a witness on inquest report proved his signature Exhibit 1 and he denied having any conversation with P.W. 2 Bahore Mahto about death of the deceased. He was declared hostile. P.W. 2 namely, Bahore Mahto is none else than father-in-law of the deceased and the person before whom the deceased made allegation of being subjected to such heinous crime ultimately resulting into her death, but this witness has said nothing of the kind and declared hostile. P.W. 3 namely, Narain Mahto, son of P.W. 2, has come to say that on the relevant day he was out of State. He was declared hostile. P.W. 4 namely, Ram Bilas Mahto and P.W. 5 namely, Lakhan Mahto, both since stating nothing, were also declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 7 namely, Dr. Vijay Kumar who conducted autopsy on the dead body proved post mortem report (Exhibit 2) which indicates nothing about any sort of alleged heinous crime.

P.W. 8 namely, Sachidanand Choudhary is ascribe of Fard-e-beyan. and Investigating Officer, proved Exhibit 3 onwards.

Last but not the least, informant P.W. 6 namely, Chandradeo Mahto though has stated the prosecution version and proved his signature (Exhibit 1/1 and 1/3), but even if, his entire statement is taken to be true. His statement on the relevant point relating to either of the two offences is based on the information allegedly received from P.W. 2 who has denied having any such information or passing through to P.W. 6.

The facts and circumstances stated above has given a valid room to learned counsel for the informant to make submission that there is absolutely nothing against the appellant who has been made victim for ulterior motive.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor trying his level best, but could not be able to point out anything from the materials available to him substantiating the charge against the appellant.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed. The appellant is set free from the liability of respective bail bond furnished on his behalf. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court below forthwith.