1. Ramdeo Mahto Son of Late Chintu Mahto, 2. Bardu Mahto son of Shri v. With Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 378 of 2002 Doman Mahto son of late Manbharan
Case Details
2025:JHHC:32967-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 207 of 2002 [Against the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 274/2000 and 70/ 2002 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar dated 24th April, 2002 arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 158/2000] 1. Ramdeo Mahto Son of Late Chintu Mahto, 2. Bardu Mahto son of Shri Budhan Mahto Both resident of village-Jiapani, P.S. Mohanpur, District-Deoghar. The State of Jharkhand …. Appellants ….. Respondent Versus With Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 378 of 2002 Doman Mahto son of late Manbharan Mahto resident of village Jiapani, P.S.- Mohanpur, District-Deoghar. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent PRESENT
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants For the State : Mrs. Supriya Dayal, (Amicus Curiae) : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. --------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. On 13.10.2025 Pronounced On:30 /10 /2025 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned amicus curiae appearing for appellants Mrs. Supriya Dayal as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mrs. Priya Shrestha. 2. Both the appeals are directed from the common judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 274/2000 and 70/ 2002 by Ist Additional Sessions Page | 1 2025:JHHC:32967-DB Judge, Deoghar dated 24th April, 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals as per fardbeyan of Kauhsalya Devi (informant) dated 04/08/2002 recorded by S.I. A.K. Mishra of Mohanpur Police Station is that the informant's husband used to pull rickshaw, but due to agricultural work in the season of paddy crops, he used to stay at home for cultivation work instead of pulling rickshaw. It is further alleged that after completion of agricultural work on 03.08.2000 her husband went to pull rickshaw. In the night, the informant along with her children were sleeping in the room and mother- in-law aged about 70 years was sleeping in the cow-shed for looking after the cows and bullocks. It is further alleged that in the dead of night at about 12 AM - 01:00 AM one Doman Mahto started abusing informant's mother-in-law, then she opened the door and flashed the torch and saw that Doman Mahto having tangi, Ramdeo Mahto and Bardu Mahto were also standing without arm. The informant due to fear closed the door and started raising alarm then, accused persons fled away and some villagers assembled there. The informant again opened the door and noticed that her mother-in-law was lying dead in the cow-shed Page | 2 2025:JHHC:32967-DB receiving injuries caused by means of Tangi or Sabbal on her head. It is further alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was land dispute between the parties. 4. On the basis of above information, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 158/2000 dated 04.08.2000 was registered under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the above named accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused persons for the aforesaid offence, who faced the trial and after completion of trial impugned judgment and order was passed, which has been assailed in these appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution story as projected in the F.I.R. by the sole eye-witness namely Kaushalya Devi is absolutely not believable at all, even if her version is taken to be granted at its face value, no overt act or any kind of participation in causing murder of the deceased is attributed against the appellants. It is very strange that she heard hulla in the dead of night, opened the door and saw the accused persons and again closed the door and slept away. Except the informant, no other eye-witness has been examined in this case and nothing incriminating material has been collected during investigation showing involvement and participation of the appellants in the alleged offence of murder rather they have falsely Page | 3 2025:JHHC:32967-DB been implicated in this case for wrecking vengeance against them. The learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of sole eye-witness, which also does not find corroboration from the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased as pointed out in her post-mortem report (Exhibit-2). Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside allowing these appeals. 6. On the other hand learned Spl.P.P appearing for the State has defending the impugned judgment of conviction has submitted that the eye witnesses of occurrence have proved the actual role and participation of the appellants in the alleged offence of murder and also the motive behind occurrence. Learned trial court has very wisely appreciated in a threadbare manner, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrived at right conclusion, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference by way of these appeals, which are devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 7. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 8. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that as to whether the learned trial court has committed any serious error of law in appreciating Page | 4 2025:JHHC:32967-DB the evidence of sole eye-witness examined in this case and arrived at wrong conclusion? 9. We have to apprise ourselves with the oral testimony of witnesses before imparting our verdict on the above point :- It appears that altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charge leveled against the appellants. Out of them P.W.1 Tula Mahto has only seen the dead body of the deceased lying in the cow-shed of her house. This witness has given a different story as against the prosecution that the informant was under inimical terms with her mother-in-law and always used to scuffle with her and not providing her food properly hence, the deceased frequently used to take meal provided by other villagers. P.W.2 Baidyanath Yadav has also seen the dead body of the deceased lying in the cow-shed and nothing else. P.W.3 Rameshwar Yadav went to place of occurrence after hearing hulla in the village that mother of Narayan Mahto has been murdered. He saw injury on the right side of head to the deceased. P.W.4 Sabita Devi is the granddaughter of the deceased, although she has been examined as an eye-witness of the occurrence, but has given a complete go-by to the prosecution story as propounded in the F.I.R. by the informant. According to her, in the night she along with her mother Page | 5 2025:JHHC:32967-DB was sleeping meanwhile Doman Mahto came to her courtyard and started abusing them. She came out opening the door then saw the accused persons Doman Mahto, Budhan Mahto, Ramdeo Mahto, Badru Mahto armed with Tangi and Sabbal, then she started raising alarm. It is further stated that hearing their screams, villagers assembled, then again she opened the door and saw that her grandmother was lying dead. In her cross-examination, she admits that she has been married and usually reside at her matrimonial home but about two months ago, she had come to her parental home. She further states that when the villagers assembled, they were raising alarm saying चोर-चोर. She further admits that only Doman Mahto assaulted her grandmother by tangi thrice and Budhan Mahto assaulted 2 – 3 Sabbal blow on head, Ramdeo Mahto and Badru Mahto have given three lathi blow each to the deceased. She also states that in her statement before police, she has stated as eye-witness of the occurrence, but she cannot tell about any dispute between her father and accused persons. P.W.5 Kaushalya Devi is the informant. According to her evidence at about 12:00 to 01:00 AM in the night while she was sleeping, she heard some noise of abusing, then opened the door and saw the accused persons Doman Mahto, Budhan Mahto, Badru Mahto and Ramdeo Mahto. Doman Mahto was armed with tangi, Budhan Mahto armed with Page | 6 2025:JHHC:32967-DB Sabbal and other accused persons were having no arms. She flashed torch and saw the accused persons. Straight forward she further states that when she opened the door, she saw that her mother-in-law was lying dead on the cot. She has stated no motive behind the occurrence and no dispute with the accused persons rather there was cordial relationship with the accused persons. She further states that the accused persons were assaulting to deceased about one hour and she was raising alarm then villagers assembled. She also admits that in her statement before police, she has stated that in the torch light, she identified the accused persons, but was raising alarm by saying चोर-चोर. P.W.6 Naresh Tati is witness of inquest report. P.W.7 Narayan Mahto is the husband of the informant. Admittedly, he is not the eye-witness of the occurrence rather he came to know from his wife about murder of his mother by the accused persons. P.W.8 Kuberi Devi is the hearsay witness from the informant that her grandmother Alkhi Devi was murdered by the accused persons. P.W.9 Dr. Anand Kumar Jain has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and following ante-mortem injuries:- On external examination:- There was depressed fracture with loss of bone and brain material 7" x 3" right side of skull with fracture of frontal temporal and parietal bone on right side. Page | 7 2025:JHHC:32967-DB On Dissection- Brain and meninges pale with blood in frontal cavity in chest. In heart, left side chamber was empty and right side chamber was full of blood. In abdomen liver, spleen, kidney was pale and stomach was empty. Time lapse since death within 48 hours. Cause of death opined due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of above head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. P.W.10 S.I. Anand Kumar Mishra is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan of informant as Exhibit-2, Formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3. He recorded re-statement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence which is situated in village Jiapani and house of the informant roofed by phus (फू स) and cow-dung. Towards the eastern side of the cow-shed, there was a cot whereupon the deceased was lying dead. He prepared inquest report of the deceased in presence of witnesses and also arrested the accused persons and after finding sufficient evidence, submitted charge-sheet against them for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has categorically stated in his cross-examination that neither witness Sabita Devi (P.W.4) nor Kaushalya Devi (informant)(P.W.5) have stated before him that they have seen the accused persons by flashing torch while assaulting to the deceased. He has also not seized the torch Page | 8 2025:JHHC:32967-DB from the informant nor it was produced before him. None of the villagers interrogated by him have seen the occurrence rather arrived after commission of murder. 9. Apart from above oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence also adduced by prosecution:- Exhibit:- 1 Post-Mortem Report Exhibit:- 2 Formal F.I.R. Exhibit:-3 Fardbeyan Exhibit:-4 Identification of R.T.I. of Kaushalya Devi on Fardbeyan by Anand Kumar Mishra Officer In-Charge Mohanpur Police Station. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the evidence of main witness namely Kaushalya Devi (Informant)(P.W.5) and her daughter Sabita Devi (P.W.4) who claim to be eye-witness of the occurrence. Although, the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) has not found them to be eye-witness of the occurrence. The story as projected by P.W.4 and P.W.5 as discussed above clearly shows that they after hearing some noise coming from the cow-shed, opened the door and saw the accused persons armed with tangi and Sabbal and two accused persons were having no arm. It is stated by P.W.4 (Sabita Devi) that Doman Mahto assaulted her grandmother by tangi thrice and Budhan Mahto assaulted 2 – 3 Sabbal blow on head, Ramdeo Mahto and Badru Page | 9 2025:JHHC:32967-DB Mahto given three lathi blow each to the deceased, but as against the Post-Mortem report of the deceased depicts single injury sustained by the deceased on her head caused by hard and blunt substance not by the use of tangi or by rod or by lathi and other appellants are admittedly having no lathi or other hard and blunt object. P.W.1 (Tula Mahto) categorically stated that there were inimical terms and frequent scuffle between informant with her mother-in-law (deceased) and the deceased was not being provided sufficient food for her survival. It also appears from the post-mortem report that the stomach of deceased was found empty. These materials clearly indicate that the occurrence as stated by the purported eye-witnesses has not happened in that manner rather real story is being concealed by the prosecution. 11. In the given facts and circumstances, the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.5 cannot be believed to be trustworthy. Except the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses there is nothing else to connect the appellants with the murder of the deceased. Even enmity with the accused persons has also not been proved, rather it is admitted by informant herself that there was cordial relationship with the accused persons. Therefore, the entire prosecution story as projected by the informant appears to be shrouded with doubt and concealment of material facts. Page | 10 2025:JHHC:32967-DB Therefore, the conviction of the appellants on the basis of evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 cannot be sustained. We find that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law while appreciating the evidence of projected eye-witnesses in this case, who had never seen the occurrence nor they have reproduced the entire manner of occurrence in the way it happened. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants. Appellants are hereby acquitted from the charge leveled against them and these appeals are allowed. 12. Appellants are on bail, hence they are discharged from their respective bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 13. Considering the proper assistance of learned Amicus Curiae in
Decision
disposal of this case, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Ser- vices Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.7,500/- to Mrs. Supriya Dayal, the learned Amicus Curiae. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. 15. Pending I.As, if any stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date:30/10/2025 Amar/- N.A.F.R. Page | 11