Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 2, he further stated that Alam Khan (app. in Cr.Appeal DB No. 1004/16) by means of nfc;k started mutilating neck of his father, whereby neck of his father was mutilated and blood started coming out. In paragraph 3 of his evidence, he stated that Bimal Mahto (app. in Cr.Appeal DB No. 1034/16) by means of dabiya started mutilating one of the hand of his father. Due to said injury, his father died in the field, which was near the pond of Shyam Sundar Jha. Thereafter, the informant and his sister Birodhiya Devi raised alarm and said that "esjs firkth dks dkV nsyds gksA ". After hearing the alarm, Ram Khelawan Mahto (P.W.6), Fucho Mahto (P.W.1), Kamo Mahto (P.W.4), Ram Bilas Mahto Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1004 of 2016 dt. 16-02-2018 (P.W.2) arrived there, then all the accused persons fled away. In paragraph 5 of his evidence, C.W.1 (informant) stated that the reason for the occurrence was that his father was doing sipahigiri (Musclemanship) of his landlord Khurshid Khan, which was being opposed by the accused persons, but his father had not left the sipahigiri (Musclemanship), due to this animosity, the accused persons jointly had killed his father. He stated that regarding the occurrence, he had given statement/fardbeyan to the Daroga Ji of Bihariganj Police Station at the place of occurrence itself and Daroga Ji after writing his fardbeyan had read over to him and thereafter, he signed on the fardbeyan and he had identified his signature, which was marked as Ext. 1/1, whereas on perusal of the fardbeyan it is evident that same was recorded at the door of deceased. In paragraph 8 of his evidence, he stated that witness Ram Khelawan Mahto (P.W.6) has already died. In paragraph 10 of his evidence, he stated that accused Mukti Lal was not involved in the occurrence. He stated that due to mistake name of Yukti Lal was incorrectly disclosed as Mukti Lal. This witness has further stated in same paragraph that Mukti Lal was innocent. Surprisingly, in the fardbeyan, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1004 of 2016 dt. 16-02-2018 accused Mukti Lal Mahto was arrayed as accused with his parentage and address also, but to the reasons best known to C.W.1, he has exonerated the accused Mukti Lal Mahto from all accusation and this was one of the reason that learned Trial Judge has passed order of acquittal in respect of accused Mukti Lal Mahto. In paragraph 11 of his cross- examination, he stated that he had studied up-to 8 th class and he was peon in Udakishunganj block office, however; in paragraph 13 of his cross-examination, he stated that the accused persons had threatened him and he accepts that he had not filed any written information against anyone. In paragraph 15 of his cross-examination, he reiterated that in the fardbeyan, he had said that accused persons had mutilated his father by dabiya, which was seen by him with his sister. However, on going through the fardbeyan i.e. Ext. 1, it is evident that this witness is not speaking truth, since in the fardbeyan, no such specific word was uttered by informant/C.W.1. In paragraph 16 of his cross-examination, on being asked, he further reiterated that before the police he had stated that Bimal Mahto (app. in Cr.Appeal DB No. 1034/16) by means of dabiya started mutilating arm of his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1004 of 2016 dt. 16-02-2018 father. He further stated that Alam Khan (app. in Cr.Appeal DB No. 1004/16) by means of dabiya started mutilating neck of his father, whereby the neck of his father was half cut, blood started oozing out and all those occurrence was seen by him and his sister Birodhiya (C.W.2). This fact is again contrary to the fardbeyan. In paragraph 19 of his cross-examination, he accepts that at the time of occurrence, the father was mukhiya of Laxmipur Lalchand village panchayat. In paragraph 21 of his cross-examination, he stated that after the occurrence, he had left the dead body of his father at the place of occurrence itself and it was not brought to his house. The dead body was at the place of occurrence till arrival of the police. The dead body was removed from the place of occurrence after arrival of the police. However, on examination of the inquest report, it is evident that the inquest report was prepared at the door of the deceased itself. In paragraph 37, he denied the suggestion that one Sandhya Devi was his first wife. He also denied that his first wife was having some relation with his deceased father. He further denied that he had left his wife after noticing such fact and he also denied that he had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1004 of 2016 dt. 16-02-2018 himself killed his father. He also denied that the dead body was found on his door itself. He further denied that since accused persons were favouring his cVbZnkj (Bataidar) Rasik Lal, due to such reason, he falsely implicated the accused persons. On examination of the evidence of C.W.1(informant), it is difficult to place any reliance on his evidence, since there are many contradictions from his fardbeyan itself.