Jharkhand High Court
Mathur Mandal vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 20 February, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 109 of 1999(R)
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 16.04.1999 (sentence passed on 17.04.1999) passed by
Sri Prashant Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo
at Tenughat in S.T. No. 188 of 1996/53 of 1996)
Mathur Mandal, S/o Hemlal Mandal,
R/o Vill- Telo, P.S.- Nawadih, Dist.- Bokaro.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, Spl. P.P.
----
CAV on : 17/12/2024 Pronounced on : 20/02/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, learned Spl. P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 16-04-1999 (sentence passed on 17-
04-1999) passed by Sri Prashant Kumar, learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 188 of 1996/53 of 1996
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to
imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sohan
Mandal recorded on 08-08-1995 in which it has been stated that in
the night of 07-08-1995, when the informant was returning home
after easing himself, he saw in the alley Mathur Mandal(appellant)
assaulting Shakti Mandal with fists and pressing his neck. By the time
the informant could reach the said place, Shakti Mandal fell down and
became unconscious. When on alarm, Gobind Mandal reached at the
place of occurrence, Mathur Mandal had fled away. Several villagers
had assembled by then, who put Shakti Mandal in a cot and carried
him to his house. After sometime, Shakti Mandal expired. The reason
for the occurrence is that on 07-08-1995 at 10:00A.M., there was an
altercation between the wife of Mathur Mandal and Shakti Pad Mandal
on the issue of a child defecating in the kitchen garden and which
flared up when Mathur Mandal was informed about the incident by
his wife on his returning home and which caused the assault.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Nawadih P.S. Case No.
67/95 was instituted against Mathur Mandal under Section 302 IPC.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after
cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 188 of 1996/53 of 1996.
Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC which
was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in
support of its case:
P.W.1 Prakash Mandal has stated that on 07-08-1995 at
8:30P.M., he was sitting on the door of Shakti Pad Mandal, when
Shakti Pad Mandal came on a bicycle and after parking the bicycle,
was trying to open the door when Mathur Mandal came and caught
the neck of Shakti Pad Mandal from behind and felled him on the
ground. Mathur Mandal started assaulting Shakti Pad Mandal with
fists with one hand, while with the other hand he had pressed the
neck of Shakti Pad Mandal. He has stated that Shakti Pad Mandal
became limp after which Mathur Mandal left him. He thereafter raised
an alarm at which Gobind Mahto came rushing, by which time Mathur
Mandal went inside his house and locked it. Gobind Mahto, Sohan
Mandal and the villagers had assembled, who picked up the dead body
of Shakti Pad Mandal and took it to his house. The niece of Shakti
Pad Mandal had defecated in the kitchen garden of Mathur Mandal
due to which Shakti Pad Mandal and the wife of Mathur Mandal had
abused each other. When Mathur Mandal returned home, the incident
was disclosed to him by his wife and thereafter, Mathur Mandal had
started searching for Shakti Pad Mandal.
2|Page
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Shakti Pad Mandal
is his cousin brother. The Police had not recorded his statement on
the date of the incident. He was sitting at the place of occurrence for
half an hour and was waiting for Shakti Pad Mandal. On his raising
an alarm, 8-10 persons had assembled at the place of occurrence.
P.W.2 Lata Devi is the mother of the deceased, who has stated
that the niece of Shakti Pad Mandal had defecated in the kitchen
garden of Mathur Mandal due to which the wife of Mathur Mandal
had abused her and her daughter-in-law. Shakti Pad Mandal had
offered to clean the place. When Mathur Mandal returned home, his
wife disclosed to him that Shakti Pad Mandal had abused her. She
has stated that Shakti Pad Mandal, after having dinner, was coming
to her place at 8:30P.M. to sleep, when he was intercepted by Mathur
Mandal who felled him on the ground and strangulated him to death.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she has two houses
within a distance of hundred yards and the houses of Suresh Mandal,
Hari Mandal, Mago Mahto and others are situated in between the two
houses. When Shakti Pad Mandal left the house, she and the others
had gone to sleep after closing the door and they woke up when
Gobind Mandal, Sohan Mandal and Prakash raised an alarm. She had
not gone to the place where the cry of alarm was raised.
P.W.3 Sapali Devi has stated that in the maize field of Mathur
Mandal, the niece of Shakti Pad Mandal had defecated at which
Saraswati Devi, the wife of Mathur Mandal came and abused her and
her mother-in-law. When Mathur Mandal returned home in the
evening, Saraswati Devi disclosed to him about being abused, at
which Mathur Mandal became enraged and caught Shakti Pad
Mandal on the road and after felling him on the ground, strangulated
him.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that Gobind Mandal,
Prakash Mandal and Sohan had raised a cry of alarm that Mathur
Mandal has committed the murder of Shakti Pad Mandal. She had not
gone to the place of occurrence. There was no previous dispute
between both the sides. The Police had recorded her statement in the
3|Page
night of the occurrence itself.
P.W.4 Suresh Kumar alias Mandal and P.W.5 Gobind Mandal
did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile
by the prosecution.
P.W.6 Sohan Mandal is the informant, who has also been
declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.7 Ramkishun Prasad has proved his signature upon the
inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/2.
P.W.8 Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma was posted as a Medical
Officer at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Chas and on 08-08-1995, he had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shakti Pad Mandal and had
found the following:
(i) Rigor mortis fade off, eyes closed, conjunctiva-
congested, mouth partially open and blood stain
at angles of mouth, tongue protruding, blood
oozed out of nostrils, neck swollen and bruises
over neck and lower part of face.
(ii) 2½" x 2" bruise mark over back of scalp. Hair
black, pulled out with strain. Vertebra-N.A.D.,
Membrane- congested, brain- congested and
hemorrhagic spot on the brain substance.
(iii) Ecchymosis 6" x 3" left side of chest wall,
bruise 4½" x 3" left side of the chest wall, bruise
8" x 5" right side of the chest wall, bruise 7" x
5" over front of left shoulder, bruise 4½" x 3"
right side of the back, the plura appeared dip
muddy in colour, mucus membrane of trachea
and larynx were congested, soften and brown,
fracture of cricoid cartilage present, lungs
congested and adimetus with gases building,
pericardium was congested, both side of heart
chambers are empty, bruise of 4½" x 3" present
on right part of abdomen, undigested food
material and gas present in stomach, digested
food material, fluid and gas present in small
intestine, feces and gas present in large
intestine, liver was congested and studded with
blister, spleen and kidney were congested.
About 20ml urine in bladder. Bruise 4½" x 5"
over right forearm, bruise 5" x 4" over left side
of neck, bruise 4½" x 4" over right side of neck,
4|Page
bruise 3" x 2½" on the middle of neck and below
the thyroid, bruise 6½" x 2½" on lower part of
the face.
(iv) Internal injury- the bruises underneath showed
dry and parchment like appearance over soft
tissues. There was fracture of cricoid cartilage
on left side, muscles on the neck showed well
marked bruising.
(v) The injuries on the person of deceased are ante-
mortem and caused by hard blunt substance or
weapon.
The cause of death was opined to be due to cardiorespiratory
failure on account of asphyxia most probably due to throttling. He has
proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-2.
P.W.9 Md. Ansarul Haque was posted at Nawadih P.S. and on
08-08-1995 at 01:30AM, he came to know of a murder having been
committed at Telo village at which he reached the said village at
2:30AM. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Sohan Mandal. He has
proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He has
proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-4. He had
thereafter recorded the re-statement of the informant and the
statement of the other witnesses. He has proved the inquest report
which has been marked as Exhibit-5. The body of Shakti Pad Mandal
was sent for post-mortem examination. The place of occurrence is at
village Telo in the alley in front of the house of the deceased at Mandal
Tola. He had thereafter, recorded the statement of several of the
villagers. After obtaining the post-mortem report, he had submitted
charge sheet.
Nothing of substance has come out in his cross-examination.
5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the murder.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned
counsel for the appellant that all the material witnesses barring P.W.1
has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1,
being the solitary eyewitness, cannot be looked into in absence of any
corroboration. The learned trial court has erroneously relied on the
evidence of P.W.1, which is full of contradictions while convicting the
5|Page
appellant. The evidence of a solitary eyewitness has to be analysed
with a great deal of circumspection which the learned trial court has
failed to do and, therefore, the judgement and order of conviction and
sentence deserves to be set aside.
7. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that
the evidence of P.W.1 finds support from the post-mortem report and,
in fact, the evidence of P.W.1 is natural, untainted and without any
exaggeration.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and
have also perused the trial court records.
9. In the fardbeyan, the informant has projected himself as an
eyewitness and he has mentioned the name of Gobind Mahto, who
had come to the place of occurrence when an alarm was raised. Both
the informant and Gobind Mahto, who had been examined as P.W.6
and P.W.5 respectively have been declared hostile by the prosecution.
The informant, in his fardbeyan, had not noted the presence of
Prakash Mandal (P.W.1). PW1 is the only eyewitness to the
occurrence, but it seems that though the appellant was not armed,
P.W.1 neither tried to prevent the assault committed by the appellant
upon Shakti Pad Mandal, nor did he immediately raise a cry of alarm
to help save Shakti Pad Mandal. In fact, the conduct of the family
members of the deceased leaves a lot to be desired. P.W.1 is the cousin
brother of the deceased whose inability to put a resistance to the
assault committed by the appellant has already been noted by us and
in addition to the same, the mother of the deceased who has been
examined as P.W.2 did not even visit the place of occurrence where
her son was strangulated. Apart from the conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
the hostility of the two key witnesses including the informant and
absence of any corroboration from any other source with respect to
the solitary eyewitness account of P.W.1 puts the same in the realm
of grave doubt and such evidence cannot be relied upon for the
purposes of conviction. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions
made hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 16-04-1999 (sentence passed on 17-04-1999) passed
6|Page
by Sri Prashant Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at
Tenughat in S.T. No. 188 of 1996/53 of 1996.
10. This appeal is allowed.
11. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability
of his bail bonds.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 20th Day of February, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
7|Page
