Jharkhand High Court
Tiran Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 125 of 2001
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 01.03.2001 and order of
sentence dated 02.03.2001 passed by the learned 3 rd Addl. Sessions
Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1989].
1. Tiran Mahto, son of Late Mangru Mahto, resident of village- Indkata, P.S.
Chakradharpur, District- Singhbhum West.
2. Hari Ram Mahto, son of Late Jagmohan Mahto.
3. Kango Mahto, son of late Jagmohan Mahto.
4. Santosh Mahto, son of late Jagmohan Mahto.
5. Jageshwar Mahto, son of late Bhagirathi Mahto.
6. Shital Mahto, son of Jageshwar Mahto.
7. Bipin Mahto, son of Jageshwar Mahto.
8. Jitu Mahto, son of Sri Jageshwar Mahto
9. Babu Lal Mahto, son of late Ram Bihari Mahto
10.Konda Mahto, son of late Ras Bihari Mahto
11.Anand Mahto, son of late Bhim Mahto
12.Jadunath Mahto, son of late Bhagirathi Mahto.
Appellant Nos. 2 to 12 are the resident of village Rugri, P.S.
Chakradharpur, District- Singhbhum West, Jharkhand.
..............APPELLANT(S)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .........RESPONDENT
......
For the Appellant(s): M/s A.S. Dayal and Supriya Dayal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.
......
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On: 18.11.2024 Pronounced On: 23/01/2025
Per, Ananda Sen, J:- This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment
of conviction dated 01.03.2001 and order of sentence dated 02.03.2001
passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions
Trial No. 27 of 1989, whereby and whereunder, the appellants having been
found guilty of charge under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and
have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Further, appellant No. 11,
namely Anand Mahto has also been convicted and sentences to undergo
Page/1
R.I. for three years under Section 324 IPC.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants had taken the defence
plea of alibi to the effect that the appellant No. 1- Tiran Mahato was
admitted in Chakradharpur hospital from 21.11.1987 to 23.11.1987 and
submitted that the entire prosecution story is unbelievable. He further
submitted that in support of the aforesaid contention two defence
witnesses have also been examined and the certificate to this effect has
already been issued by the Doctor A.K. Mahato, which has been marked
as Ext.-A. He also submitted that O.T. Register of Chakradharpur Hospital
of relevant period has been brought before the Court, which has been
marked as Ext. B and B/1, which disclose that Tirendra Mahato was
admitted in Hospital on 21.11.1987. He also submitted that O.T. Assistant
of the Hospital namely, Mordawaj Mahto (D.W.2) deposed that Tirendra
Mahato was operated by Dr. A.K. Mahato and the entry in the register is in
his pen and signature and in the said register, it has been mentioned that
on 28.11.1987 the stitch of the operation of Tiran Mahato was removed,
which has been marked as Ext.-B/1. On these grounds, learned counsel
for the appellants has prayed for acquittal of the appellants, as they have
falsely been implicated in this case.
3. Counsel for the State submitted that P.W. 1 (Jagdish Lohar),
P.W. 2 (Lakshmi Narayan Mahato) and P.W.3 (Jadu Lohar) are the eye
witnesses of the occurrence who had seen the entire occurrence and
identified all the accused persons. He also submitted that P.W. 5 (Raj
Kishor Mahato), who is the father of the deceased deposed that that when
he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw all the accused persons
fleeing away. He also submitted that the evidence of the above witnesses
is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused persons assaulted
and killed the deceased and they have common intention to commit
murder of the deceased. Thus, as per the counsel for the State, this
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
4. The FIR is at the instance of Jagdish Lohar (P.W.-1). He stated
that on 23.11.1987, he along with one Balram Mahato had come to
Chaibasa Court and after completing the work, they were returning from
the Court to their home. When they were crossing Ghaghra Ghat and were
Page/2
proceeding to the village Rugari, at about 5 P.M, they were going by the
field of one Gadi Gope, in the meantime, all of a sudden the informant was
assaulted on his back by Danda by some one from behind. As soon as the
informant turned his head back, the appellant- Anand Mahato gave a
Bhujali blow near his right eye, resulting injury on his forehead. He also
noticed that other accused persons armed with various weapon, started
assaulting Balram Mahato conjointly. It has been stated that accused
Jadunath Mahato was armed with Farsa, Bipin Mahato was armed with
knife, whereas, Babulal was armed with Tangi while the remaining
accused persons were armed with lathi-Danda. It has also been alleged
that due to the said assault, Balram Mahato fell down, but the accused
persons were assaulting him continuously. The motive behind the alleged
occurrence was previous enmity because of the fact that the accused
Anand Mahato solemnized his marriage with the sister of the informant two
years back but he deserted her and also stopped paying money for her
maintenance. It has further been alleged that the informant somehow
managed to escape and went running to the village and reported about the
occurrence to Raj Kishore Mahato, father of Balram. After getting the said
information, Raj Kishore Mahato and other villagers went to the place of
occurrence where they found Balram lying dead in a pool of blood near the
field of Gadi Gope.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan, the FIR being
Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 158/1987 dated 24.11.1987 was registered
and after investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the
appellants under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/341/342/307 and 302 IPC
and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. As the appellant pleaded not
guilty, charge was framed against the appellants for the offence under
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the accused namely,
Anand Mahato has separately been charged under Section 307 IPC also.
6. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the
prosecution had examined altogether fourteen witnesses, who are as
follows:-
P.W.1- Jagdish Lohar (the informant),
Page/3
P.W.2- Lakshmi Narayan Mahato,
P.W.3- Jadu Lohar,
P.W.4- Lalbahadur Mahato,
P.W.5- Raj Kishore Mahato (the father of the deceased),
P.W.6- Keshab Mahato,
P.W.7- Lakshman Tanti,
P.W.8- Butru Tanti,
P.W.9- Jaipal Mahato,
P.W.10- Mongla Lohar,
P.W.11- Lobo Mahto,
P.W.12- Dr. P. Minz,
P.W.13- Damurdhan Birua, and
P.W.14- Md. Mujib.
7. Some important documents were also exhibited in this case.
Ext.1: Signature of P.W.2 on the carbon copy of Inquest report.
Ext.1/1: Signature of P.W.4 on the carbon copy of inquest report. .
Ext.2 & 2/1: Signature on seizure list.
Ext.3 & 3/1: Signature on seizure list.
Ext.4&4/1: Signature on seizure list.
Ext.5 Injury Report.
Ext.6: Carbon Copy of Inquest Report.
Ext. 7to7/3 Seizure List (four in numbers).
Ext.8: Requisition for injury report.
Ext.-9: FIR.
Ext.10: Postmortem Report.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the
appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence witnesses
have also been examined in this case, who are as follows;
D.W.1: Dr. A.K. Mahto
D.W.2: Mordawaj Mahto.
9. The Trial Court thereafter considering the evidences had
convicted the appellants for committing the offence as alleged.
10. From perusal of the evidence and record, it appears that
P.Ws. 12, 13 and 14, namely Dr. P. Minz, Damurdhan Birua and Md. Mojib,
respectively are the formal in nature, whereas P.Ws. 4, 6, 7 and 8, namely,
Lal Bahadur Mahato, Keshab Mahato, Lakshman Tanti and Butru Tanti ,
respectively have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 9 (Jaipal
Mahato) is a seizure list witness of blood-stained earth who has stated that
the police had come to the place of occurrence and had seized some
blood-stained earth in his presence. He deposed that he and one
Lakshman had signed the seizure list and their signatures have been
marked as Exts.- 2 and 2/1. P.W.10 (Mogla Lohar) is also a witness of
Page/4
seizure list of a Shawal, which was seized from the place of occurrence.
He deposed that a seizure list to this effect was prepared and he and one
Gangadhar Tanti had put their signature in the seizure list, which has been
marked as Exts. 3 and 3/1 respectively. P.W. 11 (Lobo Mahato) is also a
witness of seizure list of Hawai Chappal and a bamboo danda, which have
been seized near the dead body.
11. The important witnesses of this case are P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
P.W. 1(Jagdish Lohar ) is the informant who had deposed that about three
years back this witness along with the deceased had come to Chaibasa
Court and after finishing the court work, in the evening they were returning
to their home. They crossed Ghaghra Ghat and when they reached near
the field of Gadi Gope at about 5:00 p.m., this witness was assaulted by
lathi on his back from behind. At the same time, Anand Mahato assaulted
this witness near right eye with a bhujali in his hand. Seeing the assault,
Balram Mahato started running and the appellants also started chasing
him. He further deposed that Jitu Mahato, armed with Farsa, Bipin armed
with Chaku (knife), Balu Lal Mahato armed with tangi and Anand Mahato
armed with Bhujali and other appellants armed with danda assaulted
Balram Mahato, as a result of which, he died on the spot. This witness fled
towards the village saying that Balram is being killed. Thereafter he along
with other villagers came back to the place of occurrence, where he found
Balram dead. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had come to the
Court in connection with a criminal case which was brought against him
and others by appellant Anand Mahato. He further deposed that in that
case deceased Balram Mahato was also one of the accused. This witness
admitted that there was previous enmity between the parties and criminal
cases were pending between them in Chaibasa Court.
12. P.W. 2 Lakshmi Narayan Mahato is the cousin of the deceased
who deposed that when he was in his Khalihan along with some others, he
saw that Jagdish Lohar was running towards the village saying "Mar Raha
Hai" upon which this witness ran towards him. He along with others saw
from some distance that Balarm Mahato was being assaulted by a mob
and when he reached near, he could identified all the appellants. He
further deposed that when the appellants fled away, he went near the
Page/5
place of occurrence where he saw Balram Mahato fallen on the earth in
injured condition and some brain materials from his head had come out.
He deposed that the police had come at the spot and they had prepared
the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased in his presence over
which, he and one Lal Bahadur Mahato had put their signature, which
have been marked as Ext. 1 and 1/1. From his evidence, it has come that
there was enmity between the parties as accused Anand had previously
married the sister of informant, but later he deserted her and thereafter he
again married the sister of appellant- Tiran Mahato.
13. P.W. 3 Jadu Lohar is also a cousin of the informant. He also
supported the case of the prosecution stating that on the date of
occurrence he was working in Khalihan with Lakshmi Narayan and Lal
Bhadur, he heard hulla of Jagdish Lohar upon which, all the three ran
towards the place of occurrence where they saw that the appellants killed
Balram Mahato by assaulting him. In cross examination, he deposed that
he identified all the appellants, as they were of the same village.
14. P.W.5 Raj Kishor Mahato is the father of the deceased, who
deposed that on the date of occurrence his son and Jagdish Lohar had
gone to Chaibasa Court. At about 5:00 p.m. on the same day, he heard
hulla of Jagdish Lohar, thereafter he rushed to the place of occurrence
where he saw that Balram Mahato was fallen on earth in injured condition
and all the accused persons were fleeing away from the place of
occurrence. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that there was
enmity between both the parties and cases were pending between them
as the Appellant- Anand Mahato had married the sister of Jagdish Mahato
and later on he deserted her. Thereafter, he again solemnized his marriage
with the sister of accused Tiran Mahato and this was the reason of enmity
between the parties.
15. From the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, as discussed
above, we find that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants
as they have assaulted the deceased with sharp cutting weapon and there
is nothing in cross-examination to disbelieve them. Though we find that the
defence has taken a plea of enmity, but it is clear that enmity cut both
ways. The reason for committing this ghastly offence is enmity between
Page/6
the parties.
16. The postmortem report of the deceased was exhibited as Ext.-
10. There were five injuries upon the dead body. Except Injury No. 4, as
per the doctor, other injuries were sharp cutting injuries. Though the
doctor, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the
deceased, was not examined but the postmortem report has been duly
exhibited and on that time, there was no objection on behalf of the
defence. From the evidence of the eye witnesses, we also find that the
assailants had sharp cutting weapon. As per the postmortem report, there
is incised wound on the back side on the scalp and there is multiple
incised wound in the scalp. There were incised wounds on the shoulder
scapular region on the left side. There was also incised wound on the
dorsum on the left side. Thus, the ocular evidence of the assault is also
corroborated by the medical evidence.
17. P.W.1, Jagdish Lohar is also an injured witness, who stated that
he was assaulted by knife. His injury report is marked as Ext.5, though
with objection. Though the doctor found that the injury was simple in
nature, but there was sharp cut injury above the right eye and there was
swelling on the scapular region. This injury report corroborates his
statement that he was assaulted near his eye with sharp cutting weapon.
Being an injured witness, his testimony has to be kept at the highest
pedestal. Further this witness was accompanying the deceased when he
was returning to the village from the Court. Thus we find that this witness
is reliable one.
P.W.2 though had not seen the assault, but stated that he
immediately rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing scream and saw
all the witnesses assaulting the deceased. When he reached near the
deceased, he was lying badly in injured condition and his brain matter had
come out. The fact that the brain matters come out, has also been
substantiated from the postmortem report.
P.W.3 also ran to the place of occurrence after hearing hue and
cry. He also narrated in the same manner as narrated by P.W.2. From his
evidence, the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence is also
substantiated, as he also stated that the appellants had assaulted the
Page/7
deceased.
P.W.5, the father of the deceased also narrated in the same
manner. Thus the statements of the eye witnesses are consistent and
there is also no material to disbelieve them specially injured witness who
was accompanying the deceased.
18. The defence had taken a plea that appellant No. 1- Tiran Mahto
was admitted in hospital on the date of occurrence, thus he had no
occasion to participate in the said crime and he has falsely been implicated
in this case, as he was hospitalized and in support of the said statement,
he referred the statements of D.W. Nos. 1 and 2. D.W.1 is Dr. A.K. Mahto
who had issued a certificate in favour of Tiran Mahto, but he categorically
stated that he could not identify the person today, whom he had operated
after long gap of time. He admitted that there are admission register and
other documents like bed-head tickets, which are maintained but we find
that the same have not been produced and in absence of any supporting
medical evidence, only on the basis of a certificate, we cannot conclude
that the defence has proved that the appellant- Tiran Mahto was
hospitalized at the time of occurrence. The certificate, which has been
issued and marked as Ext.-A, is on the letter head of Dr. A.K. Mahto. No
register or any supporting documents including prescription of doctor, bed-
head tickets and discharge memo from the hospital have been produced.
19. Further the Trial Court has observed that appellant No. 1- Tiran
Mahto was discharged from hospital on 23.11.1987 and the incident had
occurred in the evening on 23.11.1987 and it was not impossible that the
accused Tiran Mahto was not present at the place of occurrence.
20. The counsel for the appellants had taken a plea that accused
Kongo Mahto, Jitu Mahto and Santosh Mahto were minor at the time of
occurrence and even he has gone to the extent saying that one of them
was of three years at the time of occurrence. This aforesaid statement is
based on the recording of their age by the learned trial court in the
judgment of conviction, wherein, Kongo Mahto was shown 18 years old,
Jitu Mahato and Santosh Mahato were shown to be 17 years of their age,
but we are not accepting the same because of the fact that from the
record, we find that there is a document of Medical Board dated 5 th
Page/8
January 1991 signed by three members of Medical Board contained in
Memo No. 53 dated 8.1.1991, wherein the Board mentioned that all the
three persons namely Kango Mahato, Jitu Mahato and Santosh Mahato
were aged above 16 ½ years on 23.11.1987, which is the date of
occurrence. Thus, as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, which was in force at that time, a person aged less that 16
years would be qualified to be a Juvenile, which is not the case here.
21. As per Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act 1986, which was in force at the time of occurrence, a male
less than 16 years of age was declared to be a 'Juvenile'. Thus, the plea of
juvenility of the appellants namely, Kango Mahato, Jitu Mahato and
Santosh Mahato, taken by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no
use to acquit them.
22. Considering oral evidence against the appellants consistently
stated by the informant and other witnesses, we do not find any infirmity in
the findings of the learned Trial Court, so as to warrant interference in the
Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
23. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail is cancelled and they
are directed to surrender forthwith before the Trial Court and serve the rest
of their sentences.
24. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.
25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. - I agree.
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
Dated: 23/01/2025
NAFR-Anu/- Cp3.
Page/9
