NARESH KUMAR MAHTO @ NARESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2011-3-298
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on March 24,2011

Naresh Kumar Mahto @ Naresh Mahto Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Sy the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.4.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V,Hajaribagh in S.T. No. 24 of 2001, the appellant on being found guilty for committing murder of his mother, Kaushalya Devi and also Shila Devi, wife of his younger brother was convicted under Sections 302/34, 452 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for each of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Further the appellantwas sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 8.7.1994, the appellant in order to get employment in place of his father, who was in service committed murder of his father with the help of others. After committing murder, the appellant confessed his guilt and was sent to jail. When he came home after being released from the custody, he insisted upon his mother and brother to allow him to have employment in place of his father. On account of that, there used to be altercation. The matter then came to panchayat where it was decided that the appellant will have employment in place of his father whereas the properties including the house would go to the share of his younger brother, Surendra Kumar Mahto (informant) and in lieu of that he would maintain his mother.
(3.) It is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant never wanted his brother (informant) to get married. Therefore, at the time of marriage of the informant, the appellant had altercation with his brother. After 15 days of the marriage, when Chatur Mahto (PW 7) father-in- law of the informant came to see his daughter along with others, the appellant got angry and asked Chatur Mahto as to why did he get his daughter married to the informant. He even asked him to take away his daughter, otherwise she would be killed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.