Jharkhand High Court
Tulsi Mahto @ Tusu Mahto @ Ambuj Mahto @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 350 of 2025
Tulsi Mahto @ Tusu Mahto @ Ambuj Mahto @ Turu Mahto
aged 60 years , son of Late Dukhu Mahto, resident of
Madhupur, P.O. Boram, P.S. Boram, District East Singbhum
( Jharkhand) ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
.....
Order No. 02/ Dated: 13.06.2025
I.A. No. 6946 of 2025
This I.A. No. 6946 of 2025 has been filed on
behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail
2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of
the appellant through High Court Legal Services
Committee, Ranchi .
3. This appellant has challenged the judgment of
conviction dated 06.02.2025 and sentence dated
11.02.2025 passed by Ms. Vaishaly Srivastava, the learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge- VII-cum- F.T.C.
Special Court (C.A.W.), Jamshedpur at East- Singbhum, in
Sessions Trial No. 373 of 2015, arising out of Boram P.S.
Case No. 26 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1815 of
2015 , by which the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under 326 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for three (03) years and to pay the fine of
Rs. 2,000/- .However the learned Court below has
acquitted the appellant for the offences under section
341 of 307 of I.P.C.
4. From the impugned judgment, it reveals that
on 15.06.2015 when the mother of the Informant had
gone to north side of her house to answer the natural call
then the appellant caught her hand and had hurled Tangi
blow on her head with intention to kill her and due to
which she sustained injuries on the middle of her head
and right hand and became unconscious. On the next
morning at about 3:00 am her mother regained
consciousness and come to her house and narrated the
occurrence. Thereafter the Informant took her mother to
the Hospital and subsequently Boram P.S. Case No. 26
of 2015 was instituted for the offences under sections
341, 323, 324,326, 307, 354 and 504 of the I.P.C.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned A.P.P.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant has committed no offence. It is
submitted that although the victim Tustu Bala Mahto
was injured but she was not examined by the
prosecution. It is submitted that the Investigating Office
has also not been examined. It is further submitted that
the P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9
namely Ravi Lal Mahto, Pavita Mahto, Santosh Mahto,
Keshwari Mahto, Sapan Kumar Mahto and Bhusan Mahto
respectively are hearsay witnesses and as they were not
present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted
that P.W. 6 has been declared hostile. It is submitted that
P.W. 10 is Doctor has not given any opinion regarding
nature of weapon. It is submitted that P.W. 1 is daughter
of the Informant and she had also not seen the
occurrence. It is submitted that the appellant was earlier
in custody from 20.06.2015 to till 15.02.2017 i.e.
around twenty (20) months. Thereafter the appellant
was arrested on 17.08.2024 due to misuse the bail and
since then the appellant is custody till date i.e.
13.06.2025 for around 10 months i.e. for around ten
(10) months. Thus the appellant has remained in
custody for around thirty (30) months out of R.I. of
three (03) years and hence the appellant may be
enlarged on bail without calling for the lower Court
Record.
7. On the other hand, learned Special P.P has opposed the
prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant had
assaulted the victim due to which she sustained grievous
injury on her head and become unconscious. It is submitted
that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not
fatal as the Informant has fully supported her case . It is
submitted that the several witnesses have supported the
prosecution case and hence the prayer for bail may be
rejected.
8. Perused the records, impugned judgment and
sentence passed by the learned Court below and considered
the submissions of both the sides.
9. It appears that the appellant is alleged to have
assaulted the mother of the Informant on 15.06.2015 while
she was going to attend the call of nature.
10. Although this appeal has not been admitted,
however as the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant has remained custody for around total
thirty (30) months out of three (03) years and hence this
case is being heard on merit on the point of suspension of
sentence on the basis of judgment passed by the learned
Court below.
11. From perusal of the impugned judgment and
sentence, it reveals that P.W. 1 the Informant i.e. the
daughter of the victim and P.W. 2 son-in-law of the victim
but they are also not eye witnesses , however they learnt
the occurrence from her mother .
12. It appears that the P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 , P.W.
8 and P.W. 9 namely Pavita Mahto, Santosh Mahto,
Keshwari Mahto, Sapan Kumar Mahto and Bhusan Mahto
respectively are hearsay witnesses and they are not eye
witnesses of the occurrence.
13. It appears that the appellant is in custody around
thirty (30) months as mentioned above.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case and this Court finds that the sentence of the appellant
can be suspended, considering the period of custody of the
appellant.
15. Accordingly, the appellant namely Tulsi Mahto
@ Tusu Mahto @ Ambuj Mahto @ Turu Mahto is directed
to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ms. Vaishaly
Srivastava, the learned District & Additional Sessions
Judge- VII-cum- F.T.C. Special Court (C.A.W.),
Jamshedpur at East- Singbhum or her Successor Court, in
Sessions Trial No. 373 of 2015, arising out of Boram P.S.
Case No. 26 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1815 of
2015 .
16. The learned Secretary Jharkhand High Court
Legal Services Committee, Ranchi shall inform the
appropriate authorities to inform the appellant for
furnishing bail bonds by the appellant.
17. Thus, this I.A. No. 6946 of 2025 is allowed and
disposed of .
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 350 of 2025
18 Admit.
19. Call for the scanned copy of Lower Court
Record.
20. Put up this case after receipt of the same.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Bibha/
