Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2000. Case: Nuneshwar Mahto and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). Jharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2000 |
| Counsel | For Appellants: M/s. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate and Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate and For State: M. Hatim, A.P.P. |
| Judges | D. P. Singh, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 326 |
| Judgement Date | April 24, 2006 |
| Court | Jharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court |
Judgment:
1. All the five appellants stand convicted under Sections 147, 307 and 149 of the Indian Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offences under Sections 307 and 149, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default, to serve R.I. for one year and further sentenced to serve R.I. for one year each under Section 147, I.P.C. and R.I. for three years under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar vide judgment dated 1-8-2000, passed in S.T. Case No. 319 of 1994.
2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are that in the morning of 20th October, 1991, the informant, Duryodhan Rana, was irrigating his field situated in Mauza-Badpur, with the water diverted from Manikpur Bandh. According to him, the appellants along with two others came and asked to stop it, otherwise he may be killed. Further stated when the informant did not stop irrigating, they started abusing and threatening him, on which the informant began to run for his life. However, in the meantime, the appellants Nuneshwar Mahto and Bam Shankar Mahto brought gun and pistol from their houses, while Suresh Mahto brought country-made bombs in a bag. According to the informant, when he reached near the small Pulia between Mauza Manikpur and Mushardih, accused Bam Shankar fired from his country-made pistol, resulting in bullet injury upon his chin. However, informant continued to run towards his house and reached near Manikpur Durga Mandap, where villagers and other witnesses assembled. At this place, Bam Shankar again opened fire from his country-made pistol, hitting Triloki Sharma. During this, the appellant Nuneshwar Mahto also opened fire from his licensed gun but it did not hit anyone. According to the informant, Suresh Mahto threw country-made bombs near the house of Bhagwan Sharma and Bandhu Sharma, other accused persons started throwing brick and stones etc., resulting bleeding injury on Vishwanath Sharma. The informant along with other injured persons reached Jasidih Police Station same day i.e. on 20th October, 1991, where his statement was recorded by Jasidih Police. On that basis, Jasidih P.S. Case No. 203 of 1991 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 323, 341, 337, I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act as well as under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
3. The matter was investigated by the Police and finally charge-sheet was submitted against six accused persons, showing four accused persons as absconder. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and all the accused persons were charged for the offence under Sections 147, 307/49, I.P.C. and under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act by learned A.D.J.I., Deoghar. All the accused persons were further charged under Section 337, I.P.C. but no charge was framed under Sections 27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution due to dispute of rights to irrigate from Manikpur Bandh as well as previous disputes between the prosecution party and the accused persons. The learned trial Court after examining the witnesses held the appellants guilty for the offences and sentenced them separately for each offence, as mentioned above.
4. This memorandum of appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned lower Court has committed error of law and facts. It is further asserted that there are material contradictions in the evidences of the eye-witnesses, injured witnesses and probable witnesses, examined in this case. It is also asserted that the medical evidence does...
To continue reading
Request your trial