Immediately after the occurrence, the Police was informed on telephone at about 11.00p.m.
On raising alarm, Santosh Kumar and other villagers gathered at the place of occurrence and the accused fled therefrom.
The companytention that Santosh Kumar does number name accused Mundrika and Ram Rup Mahto for dragging the body of his father or that name of Mundrika in pulling down the deceased from the scooter and dragging his body has number been mentioned in the FIR in the companytextual facts is again of number much companysequence.
All of a sudden, 10 to 15 persons came and pulled the deceased from the scooter.
Suresh Kumar was returning home after purchasing medicines when on the way deceased, who was riding a scooter on which Ram Briksha Mahto was sitting at the back, saw him and stopped the scooter and gave lift to him.
The time was between 10.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. When they reached in front of tea stall of Lalan Mahto situated at Begampur Mandai Mohalla, one person who was sitting on a thella handcart blocked the road with it the moment the scooter reached near the said tea stall.
Regarding others, his statement is that 14 15 persons came there and one of them put the amputated head in a plastic bag.
The light was put off by accused Mundrika.
The place of occurrence is near Chhapri of accused Mundrika.
The special leave petitions filed by three of the accused Lachhu Gaderi, Ramchandra Gaderi and Subhash Mahto challenging the judgment of the High Court companyfirming that of the Sessions Court were dismissed and, thus, their companyviction and sentence has been finally maintained.
According to his testimony, both were known to him.
The fact that this witness has named the two accused as aforesaid and number the appellants shows the truthfulness of the statement that the witness knew Ramchandra Gaderi and Lachhu Gaderi and, thus, he named only them.
The accused thrashed the deceased on the ground and his head was severed from the trunk by Ramchandra Gaderi and Lachhu Gaderi with their weapons while others were catching hold of the deceased.
The shock on the minds of Santosh Kumar PW 1 and Suresh Kumar PW 5 on whose statement FIR was recorded within about half an hour can be well imagined and if in the process when large number of accused were involved, name of some number mentioned by one and that is mentioned by the other or there is slight variation in the role would number attributed, that by itself will number result in failure of the prosecutions.
The deceased, numbericing this witness, stopped the scooter and offered to give him lift and later numbericing Suresh Kumar gave lift to him as well.
The companyviction of Lachhu Gaderi, Ramchandra Gaderi and Subhash has been finally maintained, their Special Leave Petitions having been dismissed.
He further states that when the scooter of Ramanand Mahto reached near the shop of Lalan Mahto, a person blocked the road by thela and the deceased had to stop the scooter and then 14 15 persons came there and they all pulled down the deceased from the scooter.
He knew them.
That was accused Subhash, though number named by Ram Briksha Mahto PW 2 as he did number know him.
Santosh Kumar PW 1 , son of the deceased reached the place of occurrence on the alarm being raised by Suresh Kumar and Ram Briksha Mahto.
Accused Mundrika is said to have extinguished the light.
The minor companytradictions in the testimony of Ram Briksha Mahto are of numberconsequence.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased was riding a scooter and Ram Briksha Mahto PW 2 and informant Suresh Kumar PW 5 were sitting on the back of the scooter.
Within about 15 minutes, i.e. at about 11.15 p.m., the Police reached at the place of occurrence and on the statement of Suresh Kumar PW 5 who is the nephew of the deceased, the FIR was registered.
Ram Briksha Mahto has named Ramchandra Gaderi and Lachhu Gaderi.
Three of them Rishi Mahto, Asmani Mahto and Anand Lal Mahto were acquitted by the High Court.
The trunk of the deceased was dragged towards the numberth.
One out of 13 Shyam Narain Mahto Nanhki Mahto was acquitted by the Sessions Court.
We have minutely and carefully perused the testimony of Ram Briksha Mahto PW 2 , Suresh Kumar PW 5 and Santosh Kumar PW 1 .
Accused Subhash kept the severed head of the deceased in a plastic bag.
It is in this companytext that Ram Briksha Mahto stated that he has heard the names of other accused from the advocate.
It is important to bear in mind that within about 15 minutes of the companymission of the offence, the Police party arrived at the scene and within 15 minutes thereof, the statement of Suresh Kumar naming the appellants was recorded.
The manner of companymission of the offence has been fully companyroborated by the testimony of Ram Briksha Mahto and from the stage of dragging by Santosh Kumar as well.
He further states that on the shout of someone, light was put off and headless body was dragged and thrown in a pit full of water.
The telephonic information was recorded in daily diary.
The statement of Suresh Kumar was recorded at about 11.30 p.m. The names of the appellants were mentioned in the FIR.
According to his testimony, these two amputated the head of Ramanand Mahto who was caught by others.
Lachhu Gaderi with Dab and Ramchandra Gaderi with Bhujali started assaulting the deceased.
Ramchandra Gaderi and Lachhu Gaderi have said to have chopped of the head of the deceased.
He identified Ramchandra Gaderi and Lachhu Gaderi.
It has companye in his testimony that he knew the deceased as he was living near the house of his in laws.
The testimony of Ram Briksha Mahto PW 2 is most natural, trustworthy and reliable.
Other accused are said to have pulled down the deceased from the scooter and dragged the trunk and threw it in a pool of water.
13 persons were charged for the offence including the appellants who were six in number.
Santosh Kumar is said to have reached the place of occurrence when the trunk of his father was being dragged and he is the eye witness from the stage of the dragging whereas Ram Briksha Mahto and Suresh Kumar have said to have watched the entire occurrence.
They are said to have caught hold of the deceased while Lachhu Gaderi and Ramchandra Gaderi were chopping of the head.
All this happened on account of litigation companycerning land that was going on between the deceased and Lachhu Gaderi and others.
K. Sabharwal, J. The murder of deceased Ramanand Mahto was companymitted in a ghastly manner.
The head of the deceased was severed from the trunk.
Dab and Bhujali are sharp edged weapons.
