Jharkhand High Court
Manmath Mahato S/O Late Sudersan Mahato ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.A(SJ) No.745 of 2006
Manmath Mahato S/o Late Sudersan Mahato Resident of Phusro,
P.S. Chandan Kiari, District - Bokaro. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Addl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 14.02.2025
By Court:- Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant has
submitted that appeal in respect of appellant No.1 viz.
Krishna Kishor Mahato has already been abated vide order
dated 15.01.2025.
2. Heard Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned amicus curiae
appearing for the sole surviving appellant viz. Manmath
Mahato as well as Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned Addl. P.P.
appearing for the State.
3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2006 passed
Cr.A(SJ) No.745 of 2006 Page | 1
by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions
Trial No.01 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, the appellant
was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence
punishable under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code
along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
25.02.1998 at around 09:30 A.M., the informant (Satrughan
Rajak) was washing clothes at Bara Bandh Pond in his village,
while Kapurwa Devi and other villagers were catching fish. A
quarrel erupted between the accused persons (appellant) and
Niranjan & Suresh Rajak over the issue of fish rearing in the
pond. During the altercation, accused Krishna Kishor (now
deceased) allegedly assaulted the informant with a "Farsa"
(sharp-edged weapon), causing an injury on his neck.
Accused Manmath Mahato (appellant) allegedly instigated
Krishna Kishor to commit the assault. After the attack, the
accused persons fled away from the scene. The informant ran
back home and later, in an injured condition, went to the
police outpost to lodge his statement.
On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, the
case was instituted as Chandan Kiyari P.S. Case No.20 of 1998
for the offences under Sections 324/307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellant for the offences under
Sections 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, cognizance
was taken and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions, where Sessions Trial No.01 of 2005 was registered.
Charges were framed under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C.
and Section 3(v) of the S.C. & S.T. Act against the accused
which was read over and explained to him, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were
examined by the prosecution and following documentary
evidence were also adduced:
Exhibit 1 : Signature of informant on Fardbeyan
Exhibit 2 : Injury report
Exhibit 3 : Fardbeyan
Exhibit 4 : Formal F.I.R.
7. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty
for the offences under Section 326/34 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this
appeal.
8. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant has
submitted that appellant No.1 viz. Krishna Kishor Mahato
has died and his case has been abated vide order dated
15.01.2025 and appellant No.2 viz. Manmath Mahato was
held guilty and sentenced for the offence under Section 326
read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The prime accused who was
awarded five years' imprisonment along with fine of
Rs.3000/- has been died and the present appellant has been
awarded only two years' imprisonment along with fine of
Rs.1000/-. The present appellant was awarded lesser sentence
on the ground that no specific overt act has been attributed
against him. There was single blow injury caused to the
injured person by the deceased appellant. Prosecution has
also not proved the necessary ingredients of Section 34 of the
I.P.C. and there is no whisper in the judgment itself that the
present appellant has acted in a concerted manner in
furtherance of common intention with the co-accused and no
overt act has also been proved against the appellant,
therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is
absolutely illegal and not justified under law.
9. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the
State has opposed the above contention of learned counsel for
the appellant and defended the conviction and sentence of
the appellant and submitted that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any
interference.
10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the
impugned judgment and order along with materials available
on record.
It appears that the sole injured-cum-informant is P.W.1
viz. Satrughan Rajak has not deposed anything about any
assault by the accused appellant to him.
In his cross-examination, informant admitted that the
accused person Krishna Kishor Mahato (now deceased)
holding farsa assaulted him only and no other persons have
assaulted him.
P.W.-5 Dr. Mahendra Prasad has examined the sole
injured-cum-informant P.W.1 viz. Satrughan Rajak and found
incised wound over the nap of the neck 2" x 1/6" x 3/4". The
injury was opined to be grievous in nature caused by sharp
weapon.
11. From perusal of discussion of aforesaid evidence, it is
crystal clear that no specific role has been attributed against
the appellant for causing injury to the injured person of this
case and there was single blow injury caused by the deceased
appellant viz. Krishna Kishor Mahato. This appellant has
been roped in this case merely because of his presence at the
spot. No animus has also been assigned against him showing
his complicity in the alleged offence.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, I find
merits in this appeal which is hereby allowed and impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellant is
set aside. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability
of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
13. I appreciate the able assistance rendered by
Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, the learned amicus curiae and
Cr.A(SJ) No.745 of 2006 Page | 6
Mr. S.K. Srivastava, the learned Addl. P.P.
14. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services
Committee shall reimburse the learned amicus curiae on
submission of bills, as per Notification dated 23.11.2017.
15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin
