Ramjit Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Appellants are before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 452 of the IPC.

Informant- Ram Chandar Mahto is the father of the deceased. As per his fardbeyan recorded on 15.03.1980, his daughter- Simiya Devi was married to Ram Muni Mahto (A-2). His son-in-law had ousted and driven his daughter after assaulting her in her matrimonial home. A Panchayat was also held in this regard, but he did not abide by decision of Panchayat. His son Mahesh Mahto (deceased) asked Ram Muni Mahto to take his sister, but he did not agree and finally in writing expressed that he was not interested in keeping her with him. This was objected to by his son Mahesh Mahto and had a hot exchange with him. At this, Ram Muni and his elder brother- Ramjit had extended life threat to him.

On 15.03.1980, when the informant and Mahesh Mahto were at home, about 7-8 persons came to their house in the evening at 8:00 O’ clock and started assaulting the informant. When his son Mahesh Mahto came out, Ram Muni fired at him at the command of Ramjit Mahto. It is said that Ram Muni had covered his face with a towel which fell down due to which he could identify him. Ramjit had covered his face and he could be identified by his voice as he issued the command to shoot Mahesh Mahto. The other family members were assaulted by them. Mahesh Mahto died because of the gun shot injury. It is also alleged that the family members were robbed of ornament and other house hold articles by the dacoits.

On the basis of the fardbeyan, Garhwa P.S. case No.18/80 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 380, 323/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against these appellants. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet. Appellants were put on trial and convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 452 of the IPC.

Altogether 12 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant document including fardbeyan and post-mortem examination report have been proved and marked as exhibits. After prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is of innocence.

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that highly improbable prosecution case has been set up by the prosecution. It is contended that it was a case of robbery in which ornaments and valuable from the house were looted, but no charge under Section 395 or 396 of the IPC has been framed. A case of dacoity and murder by unidentified 7-8 persons, has been given a color of murder committed by appellant no.2. Investigation did not make any headway with regard to the other 7-8 persons who were involved in the incidence and charge-sheet was filed only against these appellants.

Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that it is a case of pre-meditated murder having been committed on account of marital discord. Informant and other eye witnesses identified both these appellants.

FINDINGS

Deceased- Mahesh Mahto died of gunshot injury, has been proved by the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit 3) and homicidal death has not been disputed. The challenge to the judgment of conviction is mainly on the ground that the appellants were not involved in the incidence. As far as appellant no.2- Ram Muni Mahto is concerned witnesses have consistently stated that it was he who had fired at the deceased. The main evidence in this point is of P.W. 2, who is the informant of the case, P.W. 4 is the wife of the deceased and P.W. 5 is the sister of the deceased. Testimony of these witnesses are consistent and there is no reason to doubt in the veracity of their account.

I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence of Ram Muni Mahto.

As far as appellant no.1- Ramjit Mahto is concerned, it is said that he had given the command to fire at Mahesh Mahto. The evidence against him does not inspire confidence for the reason that he had covered his face and the incidence took place in the evening at around 8:00 O’ clock. The very identification in such circumstance does not appear to be plausible. Furthermore, he was not the family member of the informant and therefore, his identification by voice, is not convincing. Prosecution has set up a case that Appellant no.2 had gone there to take revenge for his past insult, so the dye was cast, wherein the Appellant no.2 had decided to finish off the deceased, then there was no occasion for appellant no.1 to give command for firing at the deceased. Evidence that Appellant No.1 gave command, is very improbable. Under the circumstance, appellant no.1- Ramjit Mahto is given benefit of doubt and the judgment of conviction is set aside. Since appellant no.1 is on bail, his sureties are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

Judgment of conviction and sentence against Ram Muni Mahto is affirmed.

Appellant No.2- Ram Muni Mahto is on bail, his bail is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks of the order to serve the remaining part of the sentence failing which, the Trial Court will proceed as per law.

Criminal Appeal is accordingly, partly allowed.

Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.