Ludhak Mahto @ Lurak Mahto Son Of Nanku ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1715 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ludhak Mahto @ Lurak Mahto Son Of Nanku ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 January, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                               Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 132 of 1999(R)

                         Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
                  20.04.1999 (sentence passed on 21.04.1999) passed by Shri Dilkeshwar
                  Pandey, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions
                  Trial Case No. 142 of 1994/73 of 1997

                  Ludhak Mahto @ Lurak Mahto son of Nanku Mahto, resident of Village
                  Sijua, P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra
                                                              ...    Appellants
                                            Versus
                  The State of Jharkhand                      ...      Respondent
                                                   ----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

CAV on 12.12.2024 Delivered on 14.01.2025

----

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.1999 (sentence passed on 21.04.1999) passed by Shri Dilkeshwar Pandey, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial Case No. 142 of 1994/73 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/149, 364/149 and 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the conviction u/s 302/149 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the conviction u/s 364/149 I.P.C. as well as rigorous imprisonment for two years for the conviction u/s 201/149 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Muneshwar Singh recorded on 31.07.1993 in which it has been stated that on 30.06.1993 at 2 p.m., his nephew Awadh Kishore Singh who was a Fair Price Shop dealer was distributing kerosene oil to the beneficiaries when Mansuri Bhuiyan @ Rajendra Bhuiyan along with three other extremists armed with pistol and rifle came and on the pretext that their colleagues have directed to assemble

1|Page near the store of the Mukhiya had taken away Awadh Kishore Singh who was made to sit near the store for one hour. When the extremists were taking away Awadh Kishore Singh, the informant and others requested the extremists to release him to which they assured that he would be released once the committee members ask him some questions. It has been alleged that Awadh Kishore Singh was taken towards the Jungle in village Salkhera and some villagers as well as the family members followed the extremists for one kilometer after which the extremists collected all such persons and made them sit at a particular place in the jungle. The extremists had stated that once they blow a whistle they should come and meet Awadh Kishore Singh. The villagers and the family members sat for some time and since there was no sound of whistle, they returned back home. While returning the extremists had threatened them not to disclose about the incident to the police.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Pratappur P.S. Case No. 29/1993 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 342 and 364 of the I.P.C. On conclusion 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 Sessions Trial No. 142 of 1994. Charge was framed against the accused/ appellant for the offences punishable u/s 148, 364/149, 302/149 and 201/149 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine (09) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 Amresh Kumar Singh has stated that the incident is of 30.06.1993 and he was returning home from Chatra and along with him were Ashok Singh and Bhupendra Singh. He had got down from the bus at Girua and was going home through the jungle when he saw Awadh Kishore Singh being taken towards the jungle by the extremists and his hands were tied at the back. He had identified the extremists who were Mansuri @ Rajendra Bhuiyan, Udit Bhuiya, Hulash Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Saryug Bhuiya, Ludak Yadav (appellant), Naresh Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Nata Bhuiya and Raghu Mahato. His elder brother Awadh Kishore Singh was being taken towards

2|Page the jungle. His brother did not return back and after three days, the dead body of his brother was found near Aamjhar river in the vicinity of Sardam village. He had not seen the dead body. He has stated that his brother was murdered by Suresh Yadav and others. When he reached his house everyone were crying. They had disclosed that when Awadh Kishore Singh was distributing kerosene oil, Rajendra Bhuiyan, Udit Bhuiyan and Raghu Mahto had come and they had taken away Awadh Kishore Singh to the Mukhiya and they had assured that after meeting with the committee members, Awadh Kishore Singh will be freed.

In cross examination he has deposed that he had seen the accused from a distance of 20 yards. He had not asked the accused persons as to the place where they were taking his brother. He had reached his house at 5-5:15 p.m. and he had not tried to inform the police despite having seen his brother being taken away. Even after he reached home and informed the inmates about the incident, he did not go to the Police Station. He had reached about 750 meters from Girua village towards Salkhera, when he had seen Awadh Kishore Singh and the extremists. He has deposed that Pratappur P.S. is near to Girua, but he had not informed either Pratappur P.S. or Hunterganj P.S. about the incident. He in his statement before Police had not stated that the hands of Awadh Kishore Singh were tied at the back. He has deposed that he had not seen the incident.

P.W. 2 Manoj Kumar Singh has stated that the incident is of 30.07.1993 and he was in his village sowing corn when he heard that Awadh Kishore Singh has been taken away by the extremists. He rushed to the house of Mukhiya where he saw six extremists with arms forcibly having made Awadh Kishore Singh sit and he had identified the extremists as Rejendra Bhuiyan @ Mansuri Bhuiyan, Udit Bhuiyan, Hulash Yadav, Saryug Bhuiyan, Nata Bhuiyan and Raghu Yadav. The extremists were taking Awadh Kishore Singh towards the jungle and the villagers were pleading to free Awadh Kishore Singh at which the extremists made the villagers sit and assured that after the committee members speak with Awadh Kishore Singh, he will be let off. Even after sitting for hours, when the villagers did not hear any whistle,

3|Page they started searching Awadh Kishore Singh and the committee members in the jungle, but they were disheartened at not tracing him and returned back to their houses. After three days, it came to knowledge that the dead body of Awadh Kishore Singh is lying near Aamjhar river. He and the other villagers had gone to the said place and identified the dead body to be that of Awadh Kishore Singh.

In cross examination he has deposed that near the house of the Mukhiya, 50-60 villagers had assembled. The extremists were accusing Awadh Kishore Singh of not providing a revolver to them and being an informer of the police. He could identify the extremists because they belonged to the nearby villages.

P.W. 3 Mannu Yadav has stated that on 30.06.1993, he was in the market and when he returned back at 6.00 p.m., he had heard that six extremists have taken away Awadh Kishore Singh. Later on the dead body of Awadh Kishore Singh was found near Aamjhar river.

In cross examination he has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence, but had heard about it.

P.W. 4 Pravesh Kumar Singh has stated that on the day of the incident he was in his house distributing kerosene oil with his brother Awadh Kishore Singh when Rajendra Bhuiyan, Udit Bhuiyan and Raghu Mahto variously armed had come and had asked his brother to accompany them to the store of Rambriksh Singh. He and his brother went to the store Rambriksh Singh, where Hulash Mahto, Nata Bhuiyan and Saryu Bhuiyan were present with guns. Awadh Kishore Singh was taken towards the jungle and he as well as the other villagers had accompanied the extremists to the jungle and followed the extremists to the jungle for a distance of about 1 kilometer. The extremists had made them sit while Awadh Kishore Singh was taken away by them to meet the other party leaders. They sat for one hour after which they started searching for his brother, but he could not be found. On 03.07.1993, the dead body of his brother was recovered.

In cross examination he has deposed that he knows Nata Bhuiyan prior to the occurrence.

4|Page P.W. 5 Ashok Kumar Singh has stated that on 30.06.1993 at 4 p.m., he had deboarded at Girua village from Ranjan Bus and was going towards his village and when he reached about one and half miles from Girua village, he saw Mansuri Bhuiyan @ Rajendera Bhuiyan, Udit Bhuiyan and Hulash Yadav with rifles and there were four other persons out of which, he would identify Nata Bhuiyan. Along with him were Amresh Singh and Bhupendra Singh. All the accused persons were taking away Awadh Kishore Singh whose hands were tied at the back. When he reached his village, he came to know that Awadh Kishore Singh has been abducted by the accused persons. The dead body of Awadh Kishore Singh was recovered on the fourth day near a river.

In cross examination he has deposed that the incident was disclosed by him to his father Bhuneshwar Singh. He has deposed that from 30.06.1993 to 03.07.1993, he or his father had not given any information to anyone about the incident. In cross examination on recall, he has proved the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1. He has proved his signature in the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1/1.

P.W. 6 Brijmohan Singh was in his house at 2 p.m. on 30.06.1993 when three persons came and asked Awadh Kishore Singh to accompany them. Awadh Kishore Singh was sitting in his door step and they took away Awadh Kishore Singh on the pretext that their head wants to meet him. He had identified all the three persons as Rajendra Bhuiyan, Udit Bhuiyan and Hulash Yadav. Near the door of the Mukhiya, Nata Bhuiyan, Raghu Yadav and Saryu Bhuiyan were present with rifles. All the six persons forcibly took away Awadh Kishore Singh towards the jungle. He and the other villagers had followed them for one kilometer after which, they were made to sit by the extremists and two extremists with arms were guarding them. They sat for one hour and after they were allowed to go, they searched the nearby places, but could not find Awadh Kishore Singh and all left for their respective houses. After three days, the dead body was found near Sardam.

In cross examination he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police after three days of the date of occurrence.

5|Page P.W. 7 Jalim Prasad Singh was working in his corn field at 2 p.m. on 30.06.1993, when he heard a commotion and came to know that the extremists had taken away Awadh Kishore Singh to the courtyard of the Mukhiya. When he went to the said place, he saw the accused persons having made Awadh Kishore Singh sit and just when he reached Awadh Kishore Singh was taken away by the extremists towards the jungle. He and the others had followed them and after one kilometer, they were made to sit by the extremists who assured them that after Awadh Kishore Singh meets the head, a whistle will be blown and they should come and take away Awadh Kishore Singh. Neither any whistle was blown nor Awadh Kishore Singh was found. On 03.07.1993, the dead body of Awadh Kishore Singh was recovered.

In cross examination he has deposed that all the villagers were pleading with the extremists to free Awadh Kishore Singh, but such plea fell on deaf ears.

P.W. 8 Dr. Satyendra Kumar Choudhary was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital Chatra and on 04.07.1993, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Awadh Kishore Singh and had found the following:

Whole body was putrefactive changes and covered with maggots. Several places skin and soft tissues was eaten by maggots. Foul smelling through the whole body.

All muscles and soft tissues trachea, essofagus and vessels were cut by sharp cutting substance, interior part of neck. The muscles of the face was destroyed by maggots. Both shoulder joint were partially cut by sharp cutting substance anteriorly. Viscera- Lungs was pale and putrefactive changes.

Heart-Pale and empty.

Lever- Spleen, kidney was pale and some putrefactive changes appear. Stomach-Pale and putrefactive changes contain some fluid only.

6|Page The cause of death was opined to be due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the above injuries. He has proved postmortem report which has been marked as Ext. 2.

P.W. 9 Masidas Horo has proved the formal F.I.R. and the Fardbeyan which have been marked as Ext. 3 and 4 respectively.

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. The defence has examined one witness.

D.W. 1 Sanjay Mistri has stated that there was an enmity between Suresh Yadav and the brother of the deceased Amresh Singh as both had submitted tenders for construction under a Government scheme.

7. It has been submitted by Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant that only PW-1 claims himself to be an eye witness though the evidence of PW-5 who was also accompanying PW-1 does not corroborate such identification. The Investigating Officer has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. Even PW-1 had not alleged any overtact against the appellant.

8. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP has submitted that the evidence of PW-1 establishes the fact that the appellant was a member of an extremist organization and was involved in the murder of Awadh Kishore Singh.

9. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records.

10. There appears to be two sets of accused who were involved in the abduction of Awadh Kishore Singh as per the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6. Initially there were some extremists who had come to the place, where the deceased was distributing kerosene oil and later on Awadh Kishore Singh was taken to the door of Mukhiya, where some other extremists were also present and all the extremists were armed who had later on taken Awadh Kishore Singh to the jungle where after his dead body was recovered from near Aamjhar river. Neither PW-2 nor PW-4 have stated about the presence of the appellant amongst the extremists. PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-7 had followed the extremists to the jungle where they were forcibly made to wait for one

7|Page hour and later on the extremists had disappeared into the forest. Out of the four witnesses, only PW-1 has named the appellant on account of a chance encounter with the extremists as he after deboarding from Ranjan Bus at village Girua was going to his own village through the jungle when he had seen Awadh Kishore Singh being taken away to the jungle by the extremists. PW-5 had also deboarded at village Girua from Ranjan Bus and his presence has been noted by PW-1, but PW-5 has not whispered even a word about the appellant being seen with the extremists. The evidence of PW-1 has therefore not been corroborated by any of the eye witnesses. Moreover, in the Fardbeyan of Muneshwar Singh the name of the appellant does not figure and he has also not been examined by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer, if examined would have thrown some light regarding the presence of the appellant, but his non-examination has caused prejudice to the defence.

11. There is a total dearth of evidence against the appellant regarding his involvement in the abduction and murder of Awadh Kishore Singh, but the features noted above have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and consequently, we set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.1999 (sentence passed on 21.04.1999) passed by Shri Dilkeshwar Pandey, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial Case No. 142 of 1994/73 of 1997.

This appeal is allowed.

12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 14th January, 2025 MK/N.A.F.R.

8|Page