JAGDISH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by 7th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 378/84 through which the sole appellant Jagdish Mahto was found guilty under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 8th May, 1982, the deceased Mahabir Mahto was in his residential house situated in village Gurgai Khejurtola P.S. Burmu. At that time there was an altercation between the deceased and his father Jagdish Mahto and Jagdish Mahto gave a blow by lathi on his head. After that the deceased in injured condition was taken to R.M.C.H. Bariatu where he died on the same day in course of treatment and the informant on 9-5-1982 submitted a written report which was forwarded by local Mukhiya to Burmu P.S. and on what has in this case was instituted as against the able appellant. The appellant claimed himself innocent in the Court below and his only defence was that the deceased had fallen from a cycle and sustained injury and due to that he died. However, the trial Court found him guilty under Section 304, Part II, I.PC. and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of conviction, the sole appellant preferred this appeal.

(3.) Admittedly this occurrence took place in the night of 8th May, 1982 in the welling house of the deceased of the appellant because the deceased is the son of the appellant and another informant, that is, RW. 2 Indra Mahto is the brother of the deceased, and to prove the occurrence on behalf of the prosecution, Maheswari Mahatain the wife of the deceased and P.W. 2, the informant who is the brother of the deceased were examined. Both these witnesses had consistently stated that in the relevant night there was altercation between the father and the son and so the father that is the appellant gave a blow by Lathi due to that the deceased was injured and unconscious and he was j removed to Bariatu Hospital where he died. Admittedly both these witnesses are competent witnesses because the occurrence took place in the night in their house and nothing has come in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidences.