[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Titu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 November, 2025
2025:JHHC:35702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 504 of 2005
---------
1. Titu Mahto, son of Lalit Mahto
2. Lalit Mahto, son of Late Maru Mahto, both are resident of
Village - Jatkunda, P.S. - Madhupur, District - Deoghar
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bulaki Mahto, S/o Late Jhabban Mahto, R/o Vill. -
Jatkunda, P.O. + P.S. Madhupur, Dist. Deoghar, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
---------
C.A.V. on 13.08.2025 Pronounced on 28.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and
Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of
the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2004 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.T. No. 56 of 1998,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant no. 1 namely Titu
Mahto convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324
IPC and sentence to undergo RI for one year and a fine of Rs.
500/- and in default of payment of fine failing which shall
undergo SI for further period of one month and appellant no. 2
namely Lalit Mahto has been convicted for the offence under
Section 325 IPC and sentence to undergo RI for three years
and also fine of Rs. 1,000/- failing which shall further undergo
SI for two months.
3. The prosecution case i.e. Madhupur P.S. Case No. 134
of 1997 dated 14.07.1997 came into existence on the basis of
2025:JHHC:35702
written report of one Bulaki Mahto who stated therein, that
today i.e. on 14.07.1997 at about 08:00 A.M. in the morning he
was flowing out water from the field by cutting ridge of the
field, then Titu Mahto, S/o Lalit Mahto and Lalit Mahto, s/o
Late Marru Mahto came with spade in their respective hands
and got enraged during exchange of hot words and with intent
to kill him gave a spade blow on his head and blood started
oozing out and other person has given blow on his back and he
received injury and fell down. He further stated that on Halla
Nazir Mahto and Nabair Mahto came and after seeing those
persons, accused persons fled away and he gave this written
report in injured condition in the police station for necessary
action.
4. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, Madhupur P.S.
Case No. 134 of 1997 has been instituted for the offence
punishable under Sections 323/324/307/34 of I.P.C.
5. It further transpires that subsequently during course
of treatment injured Bulaki Mahto succumbed to injury and
thereafter, Section 302 IPC has been added in the above-said
FIR on 16.08.1997.
6. On the completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted and thereafter cognizance was taken, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge has been framed
against both the convicts/appellants under Section 302 of
I.P.C. and it was read over and explained to them in Hindi to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. Prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses
to prove its case. It is required to be noted that neither I.O. nor
the Doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased has
been examined in the present case. After recording of evidence
of prosecution, statement of accused/appellants got recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused did not adduced any
evidence in the present matter.
2025:JHHC:35702
8. After appreciating the evidence, learned trial court
vide judgment and order of sentence dated 13.04.2005,
convicted the accused Titu Mahto for the offence punishable
under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for one
year and imposed fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of
fine he shall directed to undergo SI for further period of one
month and the accused namely Lalit Mahto has been convicted
for the offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo RI for three years and also imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/-
and in default of payment he shall further directed to undergo
SI for two months. Being aggrieved from the abovesaid
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused
persons preferred the instant appeal.
9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that both the appellants have been falsely
implicated in the present case and there is only P.W.-1 Nazim
Mahto who is said to be the eye witness and he is real nephew
of deceased, as such he is interested witness, therefore, as
there is no corroboration of testimony of P.W. -1 from any other
corner, therefore, no credence ought to be given by this Court
to the testimony of P.W. - 1.
10. It has also been pointed out that the appellant Lalit
Mahto is more than 80 years of age and ailing person whereas
Titu Mahto is 47 years of age and he has to look after his old
ailing father who is none else than Lalit Mahto, the appellant
herein and other family members and no other male member is
available in the family to look after them. On these premise,
prayer has been made that the appellants be acquitted from
the charges for which they have been convicted by the learned
trial court and, in alternatively, as both the appellants, were in
custody for more than five months, as such this Court by
taking lenient view, modify the sentences of both the convicts
by sentencing them to the period already undergone.
2025:JHHC:35702
11. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. for the State submitted
that it is quality of evidence which is material and not the
quantity and even testimony of single witness if it inspires
confidence to the Court, is sufficient for conviction of accused.
As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, learned Spl.P.P.
for the State submitted that a person has been killed in the
present case, therefore, no lenient view ought to be taken by
this appellate Court as the learned trial court has already
taken lenient view by inflicting sentence of three years to
convict Lalit Mahto whereas one year to convict Titu Mahto.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
13. Before adverting to the facts of the case in hand, it
would be appropriate for this Court to appreciate the oral
evidence of the witnesses.
14. Prosecution has examined four witnesses in the
present case and has also brought on record certain
documents. P.W. -1 Nazim Mahto who happens to be real
nephew of deceased/informant Bulaki Mahto. P.W.-2 is Doctor,
Bishwanath Das who examined the informant Bulaki Mahto
and proved the injury report of Bulaki Mahto. P.W. - 3 is Naffar
Mahto whereas P.W. - 4 is Punit Deo. Injury report has been
marked as Exhibit - 1, formal FIR has been marked as Exhibit
- 2, whereas endorsement on the written report of Bulaki
Mahto has been marked as Exhibit - 3.
15. After going through the testimony of P.W. - 1 Nazim
Mahto, this Court finds that, at the time of incident he was
cultivating his land which is 150 yards away from the land of
informant Bulaki Mahto and have heard the conversation
between accused persons and informant and also saw the
accused persons given spade blow on the person of the
informant. Of course, father of P.W. - 1 Nazim Mahto, is the
real younger brother of informant Bulaki Mahto but after
2025:JHHC:35702
perusing lengthy cross-examination of this witness, this Court
does not find that defence has able to elicit any materials from
the mouth of this witness which could make the presence of
this witness improbable at the time of incident.
This witness has categorically stated that it is Lalit
Mahto who had given the spade blow on the head of Bulaki
Mahto after which blood started oozing out and Titu Mahto had
also given blow from back portion the spade on the back of
injured Bulaki Mahto. This fact has been well corroborated
from the mouth of P.W. - 2 who is Dr. Bishwanath Das and he
has stated in his testimony that on the examination of Bulaki
Mahto he found:-
(i) Incised bleeding would 4" X 1/2"" X bone deep
obliquely placed red in colour over the vertex of skull
starting from A.M.P. Midline. The X-Ray shows the
fracture of skull bone. Injury is caused by sharp
cutting weapon and may be by spade. The nature of
the injury was grievous.
(ii) Injury was acute tenderness over right side of the
back. Injury is simple caused by hard and blunt
substance may be by back portion of the spade.
He opined injury no. 1 is grievous in nature caused by
sharp cutting weapon may be spade and as far as injury no. 2
is concerned, he opined simple injury caused by hard and
blunt substance may be by back portion of the spade.
As far as P.W. - 3 Naffar Mahto is concerned, he has
stated that he was also ploughing the field and there was
quarrel between Lalit and Bulaki Mahto on account of water
and Lalit Mahto fled away by saying Mara Mara and in between
Bulaki Mahto also came and this witness saw blood was oozing
out from his head.
2025:JHHC:35702
This witness P.W. - 3 has stated that Bulaki Mahto
told him that Titu Mahto has given blow to him and Bulaki
Mahto died.
16. This witness P.W. - 3 has stated, what he heard from
the injured, immediately after the incident, as such this fact is
also relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. As far
as P.W. - 4 Punit Deo is concerned, he is an Advocate Clerk
and has brought on record Ext. 2 which is formal F.I.R. and
Ext. 3 which is endorsement of the written report and photo
copy of post mortem report as Mark X. for identification.
17. It is the case of prosecution that injured/informant
Bulaki Mahto, died during treatment, but there is no iota of
evidence brought of record by the prosecution which could
connect the fact that, the death was caused on account of the
injury which was inflicted by the appellants on the person of
deceased. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, it appears
that prosecution is very casual in the present case by not
examining the I.O. as well as the doctor who has conducted
post mortem examination.
18. Considering the aforesaid aspect, learned trial court
acquitted both the appellants from the charges under Section
302 of I.P.C. and this Court also does not find any infirmity in
the finding of learned trial court. P.W. - 2, Doctor has opined
that one injury has been caused by the spade which has been
stated by P.W. - 1 Nazim Mahto, to be inflicted by the appellant
Lalit Mahto on the head of the injured informant Bulaki Mahto
and doctor has opined this injury as grievous one. Therefore,
an offence under Section 325 I.P.C. is made out, whereas it has
come from the mouth of P.W.-1 Nazim Mahto, that Titu Mahto
has given blow from the back side of the spade on the back of
informant/deceased and doctor has found tenderness on the
back of the informant/deceased. Therefore, an offence under
Section 324 I.P.C. is made out.
2025:JHHC:35702
19. Learned trial court has found the appellant Lalit
Mahto guilty and convicted him under Section 325 I.P.C. and
the appellant Titu Mahto guilty under Section 324 I.P.C. This
Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of learned trial
court, therefore judgment of conviction dated 13.04.2004
passed by Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.T. No. 56 of 1998
against both the appellants are hereby affirmed.
20. Adverting to the sentence awarded by the learned trial
court to both the appellants, this Court finds that Titu Mahto,
the appellant is son of the appellant Lalit Mahto. Both the
appellants said to be in the custody for more than five months
in the present case. The appellant Lalit Mahto is more than 80
years of age and said to be ailing person and learned trial court
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default in
payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment
for two months. Considering the fact that the appellant Lalit
Mahto is an old ailing person and has faced the agony of trial
for about twenty-five years, this Court is of considered view
that ends of justice would be met, if sentence awarded to the
appellant Lalit Mahto is modified to the period already
undergone. Accordingly, the appellant Lalit Mahto is
sentenced under Section 325 of I.P.C. to the period already
undergone. But as far as appellant Titu Mahto is concerned,
there is no reason at all before this Court for modifying the
sentence, therefore, sentence awarded by the learned trial
court to the appellant Titu Mahto is, hereby affirmed.
21. Resultantly, the instant criminal appeal, being Cr.
Appeal (S.J.) No. 504 of 2005 is partly allowed, subject to
abovesaid modification in the sentence of the appellant, Lalit
Mahto.
22. Since the appellant no. 2, Lalit Mahto, is already on
bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. So far
2025:JHHC:35702
as the appellant no.1, Titu Mahto is concerned, he is directed
to surrender before court concerned within 45 (forty five) days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the
learned trial court and if the appellant does not surrender then
learned trial court is directed to procure his presence by
issuance of coercive process so that he shall serve out the
remaining sentence as awarded by the learned trial court and
affirmed by this Court.
23. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 28th day of November, 2025
Umesh/-N.A.F.R.
