Full Judgment Text
Crl.A. No. 644 of 2004
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APEPAL NO. 644 OF 2004
MANNU LAL MAHTO & ANR. APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The two appellants, a husband and wife, were
convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and to a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default of
payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment of one
year by the Sessions Judge, Champaran, by judgment and
th
order dated 24 March, 1997 in Sessions Trial No. 515 of
1987. Several co-accused of the appellants were,
however, acquitted. The appellants thereafter filed an
appeal before the Patna High Court and the High Court has
confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Judge. It is in
this background that the matter is before us after the
grant of special leave.
3. Ms. Shweta Garg, the learned counsel for the
appellants has raised pleas similar to the ones that had
Crl.A. No. 644 of 2004
2
been raised earlier before the trial court and the High
Court. She has first and foremost emphasised that the
appellants had fired on the opposite party in the right
of their private defence and in that eventuality they
were entitled to complete exoneration of any wrong doing
by virtue of Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code. She
has further highlighted that the appellants had been
chased by a mob of 300 or 400 persons and it was at that
stage that they had fired into the crowd to save
themselves from harm.
4. We find that this plea has not been accepted by
the courts below on the evidence of five injured
witnesses. On the contrary, it transpires that the
appellant Mannu Lal Mahto was constructing his house on
public property and when he was called upon to stop the
construction he got annoyed and fired into the crowd and
caused the injuries. Likewise, appellant No. 2 Panna
Devi, his wife, had also fired into the crowd. We also
see from the evidence that nine persons were injured
during the course of the firing.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has also
argued that the injuries on the persons of Mannu Lal
Mahto had not been explained. We, however, notice that
except for one injury on the metacarpal, all the other
injuries on his person were simple in nature. In the
Crl.A. No. 644 of 2004
3
light of the categoric finding, however, that the
incident happened when the appellants were constructing a
house on public property and that they had been
apprehended by the police immediately after the incident,
no fault can be found with the observations of the courts
below.
6. The incident happened in the year 1987. Twenty
three long years have Elapsed since then. The appellant
Mannu Lal Mahto was an Army Personnel. He has apparently
lost his job on account of his conviction in the present
matter and is presently employed as a Bank Guard. The
injuries caused to the opposite party were simple in
nature which indicate that the shots had been fired from
some distance. In these circumstances, we feel that the
ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to
Mannu Lal Mahto is reduced from seven to four years, and
that of his wife Panna Devi, from seven to two years.
7. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal with this
modification in the sentence.
.......................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
.......................J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
Crl.A. No. 644 of 2004
4
NEW DELHI,
NOVEMBER 24, 2010.