MANIK CHANDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHTO happens to be appellant and Cr. Appeal No. 424 of 1990 wherein Kapildeo Mahto happens to be appellant, commonly originate against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8 th of August 1990 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 694/86 holding both the appellants guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentencing them independently to undergo RI for life, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case as per Fardbeyan of Sheela Devi (PW-3) given to the police officer on 27.04.1986 at about 1:00 p.m. in village Usraha Taal in Tesjha in brief is that her husband late Jawahar Mahto had three brothers out of whom her husband was the eldest and was followed by two other younger brothers namely appellants Kapideo Mahto and appellant Manik Chand Mahto. She has also stated that both her father-in-law and mother-in-law, living together with the appellants Kapildeo and Manik Chand had died whereas her husband, Jawahar Mahto (deceased) was living separately. She has also claimed that the partition of most of land between the aforesaid three brothers had already taken place and only a piece of 30 Katthas of land was kept as a joint family property for meeting the expenses in the marriage of their sister Madhu Devi. According to informant though such marriage of the sister of the appellants and her deceased husband namely, Madhu Devi, had already taken place some three years back but the aforementioned piece of land kept in jointness in the name of three brothers was still continuing and the two appellants, Kapildeo Mahto and Manik Chand Mahto had forcibly also usurped the share of 10 Kathas of land of her husband, Jawahar Mahto (deceased).

(3.) ON the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 100/86 under Sections 302/34 of the IPC was registered whereafter the investigation was commenced by the police, resulting into submission of charge-sheet against both the appellants. The case was subsequently committed to the court of sessions and ultimately in the trial both the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgement, giving rise to these two appeals.