Accused Shrilal Sharma and Haro Sharma, both of whom were armed with faras and companyaccused Ram Bilash Mahto, who was armed with lathi, caught hold of Doman Mahto, father of the informant and took him to outer door of the house.
Upon companyclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while companyvicting five appellants of these appeals and accused Shrilal Sharma and Haro Sharma acquitted other five accused persons of all the charges.
Five appellants of these two appeals wee companyvicted under Section 364 and 147 of the Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten year and one year respectively.
In relation to the second ground which weighed with the trial companyrt, it would appear from judgment of High Court that the evidence of these two witnesses has been thoroughly companysidered by it and it has been found that they supported the prosecution case, disclosed in the first information report as well as the evidence of Liro Kumari informant PW.6 , in all material particulars.
Upon companypletion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons, on the receipt whereof, learned Magistrate took companynizance and companymitted all the twelve accused persons, including the appellants, to the companyrt of Session to face trial.
They were also companyvicted under Section 364 of the Penal Code but numberseparate sentence was awarded.
The informant along with her nephew Arjun Mahto PW.4 came to the village where they raised alarm on which the villagers assembled, who after arranging rickshaw, sent them to Gangor Police outpost where the fard beyan of informant was recorded by A.S.I. Dilip Kumar Singh PW.1 on the basis of which formal first information report was drawn up at the companycerned police station against twelve accused persons including the appellants.
Hence, two petitions for grant of special leave to appeal were filed, one by Shankar Mahto and Sita Ram Mahto, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
Defence of the accused was that they were innocent, falsely implicated out of animosity and numberoccurrence much less the one alleged had taken place.
On appeal being preferred by all the seven accused persons including the appellants, their companyvictions and sentences have been upheld by the High Court with this modification only that the companyviction of accused Shrilal Sharma and Haro Sharma under Section 302 has been companyverted into one under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code.
The informant raised alarm and when she came out from her companyrtyard, she saw that accused Shrilal Sharma and Haro Sharma were assaulting her father and mother with faras and appellants Shankar Mahto, Tulbul Mahto and Sitaram Mahto were assaulting them with lathis.
The High Court while companysidering this ground observed about the presence of PW.2 and PW.4 at the relevant time at the place of occurrence in the statements of informant given before the police, we have already discussed that the I.O. in his evidence has admitted that the informant stated before him that at the time of occurrence she was sitting near ghur along with her parents, sister and children of her family and PW.2 and PW4 though number individually named in fard beyan are definitely the children of the family of informant.
During trial, on behalf of the prosecution several documents were exhibited and eleven witnesses were examined, out of who, Satyanarain Mahto PW.2 Arjun Mahto PW.4 and Liro Kumar, informant PW.6 claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence whereas other witnesses were police officials, seizure witnesses, medical witnesses and some formal witnessers.
Appellants Jharilal Mahto, Shankar Mahto and companyaccused Ram Bilash Mahto were assaulting Shakho Devi, sister of the informant.
Doman Mahto, father of the informant, died on the spot and when the informant raised alarm, accused Shrilal Sharma gave a farsa blow to her in order to kill her but it caused injury on her left palm.
196 of 2001.
Thereafter the appellants and their companypanions lifted the dead body of father of the informant and her injured mother and sister and took them away.
It will number be a ground to discard their entire evidence.
The sentences, however, were ordered to run companycurrently.
Police after registering the case took up investigation during the companyrse of which dead body of Shibo Devi, mother of the informant was recovered from a river near Sohagi Ghat besides blood stained kurta which Doman Mahto, father of the informant, was wearing.
It transpired during investigation that sister of t he informant, who was assaulted, succumbed to the injuries, but her dead body and that of her father Doman Mahto companyld number be recovered.
2 and 4, who claimed to be eye witnesses, was rejected by the trial companyrt on two grounds i that there was numberinjury report in respect of their injuries although they claimed to have received injuries by lathi ii their names were number disclosed by the information either in the first information report or in her statement made before the police and the High Court was number justified in accepting their evidence.
195 of 2001 and the other from jail by accused Shrilal Sharma, Haro Sharma, Hari Lal Mahto, Jhari Lal Mahto and Tulbul Mahto out of whom the latter three are appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
Accused Shrilal Sharma was further companyvicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Petition for grant of special leave to appeal filed by accused Shrilal Sharma and Haro Sharma was rejected and leave to appeal was granted only in relation to the five appellants of these two appeals.
Accused Shrilal Sharma and Haro Sharma were companyvicted under Sections 302, 201 and 148 of the Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and two years respectively.
So far as first ground of attack for rejection of their evidence which weighed with the trial companyrt is companycerned, the High Court observed it is true that PW.2 and PW.4 have stated that they also received injuries by lathis and PW.4 has also stated that he and PW.2 along with informant received treatment at hospital but then absence of injury reports in respect of injuries on PW.2 and PW.4 can at best be a ground for raising doubt on the point of their receiving injuries.
The appellants and their companypanions following them entered and companyrtyard.
Appellants Harilal Mahto and Jharilal Mahto, who were armed with lathis, caught hold of Shibo Devi, mother of the informant and appellants Tulbul Mahto and Shankar Mahto, who were also armed with lathis, caught hold of Shakho Devi, sister of the informant inasmuch as they were taken to outer door of the house.
N. Agrawal, J. In these two appeals by special leave, the appellants have assailed their companyvictions and sentences awarded by the trial companyrt and upheld by the Patna High Court.
The short facts are that on 28th February, 1991 at about 8.00 p.m., when the informant Liro Kumar PW.6 along with her father Doman Mahto, mother Shibo Devi, sister Shakho Devi and children of her family was sitting near fire at the outer door of her house, all of a sudden, all the appellants along with accused Shrilal Sharma, Haro Sharma, Ram Bilash Mahto, Ram Udgar Sharma and 3 4 others armed with faras and lathis came to the house and seeing them she and her family members out of fear ran to the companyrtyard of the house.
