Jharkhand High Court
Rohan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2016 and the order of sentence dated
11.07.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions
Trial No. 156 of 2009]
--------
1. Rohan Mahto, son of Late Babu Lal Mahto;
2. Gopi Mahto, son of Rohan Mahto;
3. Rajesh Mahto, son of Tulsi Mahto;
4. Pradeep Mahto, son of Tulsi Mahto;
5. Pawan Mahto, son of Late Lalu Mahto;
6. Ashok Mahto, son of Rohan Mahto;
7. Tulsi Mahto, son of Lattu Mahto;
8. Janmu Mahto, son of Late Lalu Mahto;
9. Mohan Mahto, son of Late Lalu Mahto;
Sl. No.1 to 7 are residents of village- Kushmaha, PO & PS-Sarath, Dist-
Deoghar and Sl. No. 8 & 9 are resident of Village-Bhailwa Dangal, PO &
PS-Chitra, District-Deoghar. ...... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
--------
(Heard through V.C. on 27.07.2021, 28.07.2021 and 29.07.2021)
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate;
Mr. Himanshu S. Pandey,Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
-------
Oral Judgment
29.07.2021
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
Nine persons were put on trial on the charge under sections 148,
302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of
Uchit Mahto @ Ajit Mahto and for attempt to murder other members of the
informant party in furtherance of their common object. In Sessions Trial
No.156 of 2009, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar has held
that the witnesses fully supported the prosecution case and, accordingly,
2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
Rohan Mahto, Gopi Mahto, Rajesh Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Pawan Mahto,
Ashok Mahto, Tulsi Mahto, Janmu Mahto and Mohan Mahto were
convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under
section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to
undergo further SI for six months; RI for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
each under section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code with a default
stipulation to undergo further SI for six months, and; RI for three years
under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code - with a direction for payment
of eighty-five percent fine amount to the wife of Uchit Mahto @ Ajit Mahto
and five percent to Lakhan Mahto, Janardhan Mahto and Subhash Mahto
each.
2. Sarath PS Case No. 142 of 2008 was lodged on 09.12.2008
against the above-named persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323,
324, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of treatment Uchit
Mahto died the next day and, accordingly, the offence under section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code was added in the report. In his fardbeyan which was
recorded on 09.12.2008 at 01:15 PM at Primary Health Centre, Sarath,
Bhumilal Mahto has stated that in the morning he was working in his paddy
field at Satbehari Mouza. At about 10:30 AM, his son came there and
informed him that Rohan Mahto and others were removing paddy crop from
Plot No. 84 situated at Kushmaha village. He saw Rohan Mahto, Gopi
Mahto, Rajesh Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Pawan Mahto, Ashok Mahto, Tulsi
Mahto, Janmu Mahto and Mohan Mahto removing paddy, which he
objected to. In the meantime, his family members also arrived there and
asked the accused not to remove paddy from the field but they did not listen
and started abusing him (the informant) in filthy language. The accused who
were variously armed with farsa, bhala, gadasa, tangi, lathi and iron rod,
on exhortation of Gopi Mahto, started assaulting them and caused serious
injuries to Uchit Mahto, Subhash Mahto, Janardhan Mahto and Lakhan
Mahto. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against the accused
and, as noticed above, they have faced the trial and convicted by the learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar.
3. During the trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses, all,
except the two doctors and the investigating officer, are eyewitnesses.
Subhash Mahto, Lakhan Mahto, Janardhan Mahto, Ketkahi Devi and
Chopali Devi are the injured witnesses. The fardbeyan of Bhumilal Mahto,
3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
injury reports of Lakhan Mahto, Janardhan Mahto, Subhash Mahto, Uchit
Mahto, Ketkahi Devi, Chopali Devi as well as the supplementary injury
reports along with the postmortem report of Uchit Mahto were laid in
evidence by the prosecution.
4. The defence set up by the accused is that the prosecution party
was the aggressor and it was they who started marpit. The accused have
filed copies of the First Information Reports of Sarath P.S. Case No. 83 of
2008 and Sarath PS Case No.143 of 2008 along with the charge-sheets in
this case. They have also laid in evidence vide Exhibit-C and Exhibit-D the
Khatiyan slip of JB No.4 and rent receipts, and deposition of Dr. Surendra
Mahto in GR No. 606 of 2008.
5. PW8, Bhumilal Mahto is the informant of this case. He has
reproduced his fardbeyan in his testimony in the Court. He has made
specific allegations of assault against all accused. PW1, Dharni Mahto has
deposed in the Court that in the morning of 09.12.2008 he was in his field
(khalihan). He saw Rohan Mahto, Gopi Mahto, Rajesh Mahto, Pawan
Mahto, Ashok Mahto, Tulsi Mahto, Janmu Mahto and Mohan Mahto
removing paddy from the field of Bhumilal Mahto, who was objecting to the
accused. In the meantime, Uchit Mahto, Janardhan Mahto, Lakhan Mahto
and Subhash Mahto arrived there and the accused encircled Uchit Mahto.
Gopi Mahto struck a farsa blow on his head and thereafter Rajesh Mahto
and Ashok Mahto struck tangi blow on the head of Uchit Mahto; Rohan
Mahto struck lathi blow on the left hand of Janardhan Mahto; Janmu Mahto
assaulted Janardhan Mahto with a rod on his left hand; Pradeep Mahto
assaulted Janardhan Mahto with a tangi on his head; Mohan Mahto
assaulted Lakhan Mahto with iron rod on his left hand; Tulsi Mahto struck
tangi blow on the head of Lakhan Mahto; Janmu Mahto assaulted Subhash
Mahto with a rod; Rajesh Mahto assaulted Subhash Mahto with a tangi, and;
Pawan Mahto also assaulted Subhash Mahto with lathi. He has further stated
that when Chopali Devi and Ketkahi Devi tried to save them Rohan Mahto,
Janmu Mahto and Pawan Mahto beat them with lathi and rod. The injured
persons were taken to Primary Health Centre, Sarath on a bullock cart where
they were treated by the doctor and for better treatment brought to Deoghar
Sadar Hospital, where Uchit Mahto succumbed to the injuries in course of
his treatment.
4 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
6. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP has prepared a
summary of the prosecution evidence which we would reproduce for a better
appreciation of the prosecution evidence:
Accused Dharni Subhash Lakhan Champa Janardhan Bhumi Lal
Mahto Mahto Mahto Mohalin Mahto Mahto
(PW1) (PW2) (PW3) (PW4) (PW5) (PW8)
Rohan Mahto Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: ----
Lathi Lathi Lathi Lathi Lathi
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Left hand of Left hand of Hand of Chopali Devi Hand & back
Janardan Janardan Janardan & Ketkahi of his own and
Mahto, Mahto Mahto Devi back & thigh of
Chopali Devi Chopali Devi
& Ketkahi & Ketkahi
Devi Devi
Gopi Mahto Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon:
Farsa Farsa Farsa Barchha Farsa Farsa
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Head of Uchit Head of Uchit Head of Uchit Head of Uchit Head of Uchit Head of Uchit
Mahto Mahto Mahto Mahto Mahto Mahto
Rajesh Mahto Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon:
Tangi Tangi Tangi Tangi Farsa Tangi
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Uchit Mahto Head of Uchit Uchit Mahto Head of Uchit Head of Uchit Head of Uchit
Mahto and head and head of Mahto Mahto and Mahto
of his own Subhash Mahto head of
Subhash Mahto
Pradeep Mahto Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon:
Tangi Tangi Tangi Tangi Tangi Rod
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Head of Head of Head of Head of Head of his Subhash
Janardhan Janardhan Janardhan Subhash Mahto own Mahto
Mahto Mahto Mahto
Pawan Mahto Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: ---- Weapon: ----
Lathi Lathi Lathi Lathi
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Subhash Back of his Head of Head of
Mahto, own Subhash Mahto Subhash Mahto,
Chopali Devi back & thigh of
& Ketkahi Chopali Devi &
Devi Ketkahi Devi
Ashok Mahto Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon:
Tangi Tangi Tangi Tangi Tangi Tangi
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Head of Uchit Head of Uchit Uchit Mahto Head of Uchit Head of Uchit Head of Uchit
Mahto Mahto Mahto Mahto Mahto
Tulsi Mahto Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: ----
Tangi Tangi Tangi Lathi Tangi
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Head of Head of Head of his Chopali Devi Head of
Lakhan Mahto Lakhan Mahto own & Ketkahi Lakhan Mahto
Devi
Janmu Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon:
Mahto Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Subhash Right hand of Hand of Hand of Janu Right hand of Janu Mahto
Mahto, his own Janardan Mahto Subhash Mahto
Chopali Devi Mahto and and Left hand
& Ketkahi right hand of of his own
Devi Subhash Mahto
MohanMahto Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon: Weapon:
Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Lathi
Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on: Assault on:
Left hand of Left hand of Left hand of Hand of Left hand of Subhash
Lakhan Mahto Lakhan Mahto his own Lakhan Mahto Lakhan Mahto Mahto
5 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
7. Mr. Prakash Chandra, the learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
create serious doubt regarding the manner of occurrence. We, however, do
not find any such variation in the prosecution evidence. The accused have
not denied their presence at the time of occurrence. The presence of the
prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence and at the time of
occurrence is also beyond any doubt. These witnesses have remained firm in
their cross-examination and there is really nothing for the defence to
challenge their truthfulness.
8. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution witnesses and
has held as under:
"19. From the analysis of the evidences on the record, it appears
that all the prosecution witnesses including the informant and the
three injured as well as the independent witness have fully
supported the prosecution case by stating in detail giving
particulars of each of every happening of the occurrence. They
have stated that as to how they reached the place of occurrence
where they saw the accused persons cutting the paddy crops and
were also holding deadly weapons like Farsa, Tangi, Rod and
Lathi. They have also stated as to how the accused persons had
assaulted several members of the informant side. All these
witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the defence but
these witnesses have remained consistent all through on each and
every point of occurrence. Each of the prosecution witnesses have
supported the version of the other prosecution witnesses. The
prosecution witnesses have not stated anything which contradict
their earlier statement made in their depositions. Thus from all
angles the prosecution witnesses appear to be stating the correct
version about the occurrence."
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us to the entire
prosecution evidence and we find that with minor variations in their
depositions the other prosecution witnesses have also recounted the incident
of 09.12.2008 in the similar manner as described by the informant and PW1
and, therefore, we would not reproduce their evidence in detail.
10. There are as many as five injured witnesses who have tendered
cogent and credible evidence. In a criminal trial an injured witness is
accorded a distinct place because he lends assurance to the Court that he was
present at the place of occurrence.
11. In "State of Maharashtra v. Tulshiram BhanudasKamble"
(2007) 14 SCC 627 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"29. .... The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution,
apart from being eyewitnesses, were injured witnesses. Their
presence at the place of occurrence, therefore, cannot be doubted.
Only because they were inimical to the respondents, the same by
itself cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. Although in
6 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
accepting the same, some amount of caution is required to be
maintained."
12. In "Kamta Yadav v. State of Bihar" (2016) 16 SCC 164 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"13...... There are six eyewitnesses and three of them are injured
eyewitnesses, which is a weighty factor to show the actual presence
of these witnesses at the scene of occurrence. Moreover, the
credibility and trustworthiness of all these eyewitnesses could not
be shaken by the accused persons. Once it is found that these
witnesses, who are eyewitnesses, were present and they have
truthfully narrated the incidence as it happened and their
depositions are worthy of credence, conviction can be based on
their testimonies even if they were related to the deceased. The only
requirement, while scrutinising the interested witnesses, is to
examine their depositions with greater caution and deeper scrutiny
is needed, which exercise has been done by both the courts below.
In fact, when the learned counsel for the appellants was confronted
with the aforesaid factual and legal position, he could not even
provide any answer to the same."
13. Besides the related witnesses, we agree with Mrs. Nehala
Sharmin, the learned APP, that PW4 is an independent witness who has seen
marpit in the morning of 09.12.2008 at Satbehari Mouza and his evidence
has remained unscathed during the cross-examination.
14. PW9, Dr. Nand Lal Pandit who conducted autopsy over the
dead body of Uchit Mahto has found one lacerated cut injury over mid front
head of the size of 7'' x 2'', bony deep. There was fracture of frontal bone
and blood had clotted around sub-facial and inside the brain. In the opinion
of the doctor, Uchit Mahto had died due to head injury caused by hard and
blunt substance. From the prosecution evidences, we find that there is
consistent evidence against Gopi Mahto who inflicted farsa blow on the
head of Uchit Mahto and that Uchit Mahto died due to head injury caused
by farsa blow.
15. The appellants have been convicted for murder of Uchit Mahto
with the aid of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
16. Section 149 does not ascribe every offence which might be
committed by one member of an unlawful assembly, while the assembly
existed, to every other member. The section describes the offence which is
to be so attributed under two alternative forms: (1) it must be either an
offence committed by a member of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of
the common object of that assembly; or (2) an offence such as the members
of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that
7 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
object.
17. In "Raghunandan v. King-Emperor" 1934 SCC Online Oudh
CC 48, in the course of rioting one Sadal was murdered by Raghunandan @
Nandan. It was held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was
to beat the members of rival faction and therefore the guilt of Raghunandan
@ Nandan for his crime cannot be constructively imputed to all other
members of the unlawful assembly, in the absence of any proved fact
leading the Court to believe that the other members of the unlawful
assembly knew that murder was likely to be committed by one of their
members in the prosecution of their common object. The Oudh Chief Court
has observed as under:
"The definition of "unlawful assembly as given in S. 141 of the
Penal Code, 1860 makes the continuance of the unlawful assembly
co-extensive in duration with the time taken in the prosecution of
the common object of the assembly, and if the phrase "in
prosecution of the common object" meant "during the prosecution
of the common object" and during the continuance of the unlawful
assembly, then the second part of S. 149 of the Penal Code, 1860
would become superfluous and clearly unnecessary. These
considerations inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the phrase
"in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly"
must mean "that the offence (committed) was immediately
connected with the common object of the unlawful assembly, of
which the accused were members." In other words, the act, say of
murder, must be one which upon the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses appears to have been done with a view to accomplish
the common object attributed to the members of the unlawful
assembly."
18. A similar note of caution was observed in "Musa Khan v. State
of Maharashtra" (1977) 1 SCC 733 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that:
"5. ...... It is well settled that a mere innocent presence in an
assembly of persons, as for example a bystander, does not make
the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is shown
by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the
common object of the assembly....."
19. Rajesh Mahto and Ashok Mahto have assaulted Uchit Mahto
with tangi on his head. Tulsi Mahto was carrying tangi, Janmu Mahto and
Mohan Mahto were carrying iron rod and they caused serious injuries to
Lakhan Mahto, Subhash Mahto and Janardhan Mahto and broke their left
arm/forearm.
20. PW10, Dr. Suresh Mahto has examined Lakhan Mahto on
09.12.2008 at around 01:30 PM. He has seen the following injuries on the
person of Lakhan Mahto:
8 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
"(i) Suspected fracture of left arm;
(ii) incised wound on frontal region 2 x ½ x ¼ centimeters;
(iii) incised wound on parietal region left side 2 x ½
x ¼ centimeters."
21. On further report from Orthopedic Surgeon of Sadar Hospital,
Deoghar it became clear that the injury no.(i) was fracture of left arm shaft
of Ulna bone.
22. PW10, Dr. Suresh Mahto has examined Janardhan Mahto on
the same day at around 01:15 PM and found the following injuries:
"(i) Suspected fracture of left forearm;
(ii) incised wound on occipital region size 1 x ½ x ¼ cm;
(iii)incised wound on scalp of medial of frontal region size 1 x ½
x ¼ cm"
23. The report from Orthopedic Surgeon of Sadar Hospital,
Deoghar made it clear that the injury no.(i) was fracture and displacement
of left forearm.
24. On 09.12.2008, Subhash Mahto was examined by
Dr. Suresh Mahto and he found the following injuries:
"(i) Suspected fracture of both arms-referred to Orthopedic Surgeon;
(ii) incised wound on left eye-brow 1 x ½ x ¼ cm;
(iii) incised wound on frontal region 2 x ½ x ¼ cm"
25. The report from Orthopedic Surgeon of Sadar Hospital,
Deoghar shows that the injury no.(i) was fracture of lower 1/3 rd of right
forearm (Ulna bone).
26. Ketkahi Devi and Chopali Devi were also examined by PW10
but no external injury was found on their person. However, their injury
reports record complain of body ache by them.
27. PW10 has stated in the cross-examination that he examined the
aforesaid persons on the basis of police requisition. There is no evidence
that the accused also suffered injury in the same occurrence and from the
manner of occurrence as portrayed by the prosecution witnesses it is quite
apparent that the accused cannot raise a plea of self defence. There were
six persons on the prosecution side who according to the prosecution were
assaulted by nine accused. There was a land dispute between the parties and
it has come on record that parcha for the land in question was issued in the
name of Rohan Mahto. In the prosecution evidence there is allegation of
assault on the head of Uchit Mahto by Rajesh Mahto and Ashok Mahto but
only one sharp cut injury was detected by the doctor. Rohan Mahto and
Pawan Mahto who were carrying lathi are said to have assaulted Janardhan
9 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
Mahto, Subhash Mahto, Chopali Devi and Ketkahi Devi but no serious
injury was caused to them. It is the prosecution case that the accused were
removing paddy crops from the field which was objected to by Bhumilal
Mahto and then a quarrel ensued which aggravated in a fight between them.
28. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish that the
death of Uchit Mahto was in furtherance of common object of unlawful
assembly. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the accused had
knowledge that death of Uchit Mahto can be caused in furtherance of
common object. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution has failed to
establish the charge under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code against
the appellants.
29. The evidence against Gopi Mahto is consistent and beyond any
doubt. He is the one who has struck fatal blow on the head of Uchit Mahto.
The doctor has rendered an opinion that Uchit Mahto has died due to head
injury. The extent of head injury observed by PW9 would establish that
Gopi Mahto with an intention to cause death struck farsa blow on the head
of Uchit Mahto.
30. We, therefore, hold that Gopi Mahto is liable to be convicted
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, his conviction
under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code is modified to that extent.
31. The question with regard to nature of offence is to be
determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. The intention of the
accused can be gathered from the manner of occurrence, nature of injury,
the weapon held by the accused and whether the injury was caused over
vital or non-vital part of the body.
32. Pawan Mahto and Rohan Mahto who were holding lathi have
assaulted Janardhan Mahto and Subhash Mahto but from their injury reports
it is difficult to identify a corresponding lathi injury on the victim. Though
their presence at the place of occurrence is proved, the allegations against
them are quite cryptic and therefore they cannot be convicted under
section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
33. In the circumstances, Rohan Mahto and Pawan Mahto are
convicted and sentenced to RI for two years under section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code.
34. There are three appellants, namely, Rajesh Mahto, Pradeep
Mahto and Ashok Mahto who were holding tangi; Rajesh Mahto and Ashok
10 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
Mahto are said to have inflicted head injuries to Uchit Mahto, and Pradeep
Mahto inflicted tangi blow on the head of Janardhan Mahto. PW9 has,
however, found only one incised cut injury on the head of Uchit Mahto and
the injury on Janardhan Mahto was simple in nature. Pradeep Mahto, Tulsi
Mahto, Janmu Mahto and Mohan Mahto have not caused any injury to
Uchit Mahto and since the manner of occurrence does not disclose assault
upon Subhash Mahto, Lakhan Mahto and Janardhan Mahto with cruelty or
in such a manner that would have caused their death, the charge under
section 307 of the Indian Penal Code framed against them are not
sustainable and, accordingly, their conviction under section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code is set-aside.
35. Tulsi Mahto who was carrying Tangi, and Janmu Mahto and
Mohan Mahto who were carrying iron rod have assaulted Lakhan Mahto,
Janardhan Mahto and Subhash Mahto. PW10 has observed broken hand/
forearm of all three - both arms of Subhash Mahto were broken. The
injuries caused to Subhash Mahto, Lakhan Mahto and Janardhan Mahto are
grievous in nature but these injuries cannot be said to be life threatening.
These three appellants, namely, Tulsi Mahto, Janmu Mahto and Mohan
Mahto were carrying dangerous weapon and from the manner of occurrence
we would infer that they intended to cause grievous injury to Subhash
Mahto, Lakhan Mahto and Janardhan Mahto and, therefore, they are
convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for five years under section 325 of
the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, namely, Rajesh Mahto, Pradeep
Mahto and Ashok Mahto are also convicted and sentenced to RI for
five years under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
36. The appellant, namely, Rohan Mahto has remained in custody
for more than eight years, with remission and the appellant, namely, Gopi
Mahto has remained in custody for more than thirteen years, with remission.
The appellants, namely, Rajesh Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Tulsi Mahto, Janmu
Mahto and Mohan Mahto have remained in custody for more than two
years, with remission. The appellants, namely, Pawan Mahto and Ashok
Mahto have remained in custody for more than eight years, with remission.
37. The bail-bonds furnished by Rajesh Mahto, Pradeep Mahto,
Tulsi Mahto, Janmu Mahto and Mohan Mahto are cancelled. They shall
surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
11 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016
38. The appellants, namely, Rohan Mahto, Ashok Mahto and
Pawan Mahto are discharged of liability of bail-bonds furnished by them.
39. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2016 is dismissed qua Gopi
Mahto and partly allowed qua the other appellants.
40. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Nehala Sharmin,
the learned APP.
41. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned,
forthwith.
42. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court
concerned through FAX.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 29th July, 2021
Sharda/S.B./Nibha
NAFR
