Jharkhand High Court
Chhotelal Mahto @ Chhotan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 390 of 2003
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2003,
passed by learned Additional Sessions, Fast Track Court No.IV, Dhanbad
in Sessions Trial No.185 of 2001]
......
Chhotelal Mahto @ Chhotan, son of Sri Daulat @ Dulu Mahto,
resident of village Pawapur/Majhali Tanr, Police Station
Topchanchi, District Dhanbad.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
......
C.A.V. on 14.10.2025 Pronounced on 30.10.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned
Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the above named
sole appellant for setting aside his judgment of conviction and
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 1 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
sentence dated 24.01.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No. IV, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.185 of 2001 arising
out of Topchanchi (Hariharpur) P.S. Case No.137 of 2000
(corresponding to G.R. Case No.3379 of 2000), whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 21.10.2000 at
about 09:00 a.m., the informant, Upasi Devi (P.W.11) gave her
ailing son (Baneshwar Mahto @ Raju) Rs.150/- to go to
Topchanchi Hospital for his treatment. It is further alleged that on
the same day at about 11:00 a.m., while informant was going to
her paddy field situated towards southern side of village, she saw
that the accused Chhotelal Mahto @ Chhotan was fleeing away
with a blood stained tangi in his hand. The informant also noticed
that her cousin mother-in-law namely Basanti Devi (P.W.3) was
also coming from the side of the road raising alarm that
Baneshwar Mahto @ Raju had been murdered. The informant
rushed towards the road and found her son Baneshwar Mahto was
lying dead sustaining injury on his neck. Meanwhile, several
villagers assembled there, who have seen the occurrence. It is
further alleged that the deceased Baneshwar Mahto @ Raju as
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 2 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
well as Chhotelal Mahto were running grocery shop in the village
and there was business rivalry so the accused had jealousy with
the informant's son due to his higher income from grocery shop,
hence, the accused has caused murder of the deceased.
On the basis of above fardbeyan, Topchanchi (Hariharpur)
P.S. Case No.137 of 2000 was registered for the offence under
Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused appellant for the aforesaid offence. The
learned C.J.M., Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence and
committed the case to the Court of sessions where S.T. No.185 of
2001 was registered. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed
to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether 13 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced :-
Exhibit 1 : Signature of Kewal Rajwar on seizure list
Exhibit 2 : Signature of Lilu Mahto on inquest report
Exhibit 2/1 : Signature of Suresh Mahto on Inquest
report (carbon copy)
Exhibit 3 & 3/1 : Seizure list
Exhibit 4 : Post-mortem Report
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 3 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
Exhibit 5 : Fardbeyan
Exhibit 6 : Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit 7 : Inquest Report
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by defence.
7. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication due to previous enmity. Accused is innocent and has
committed no offence at all.
8. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on
record arrived at conclusion about guilt of the accused for the
offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as
stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.
9. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant has
vehemently argued that the learned trial court has committed
serious error of law while passing the judgment of conviction of
the appellant without any substantive evidence of any eye witness.
The prosecution has raised suspicion against the appellant due to
business rivalry and also on the ground of last seen of the accused
fleeing with a tangi. On both counts, the prosecution story is not
sustainable at all. The informant has admitted in the F.I.R. that at
about 11:00 a.m., while she was going to her paddy field, one
Basanti Devi disclosed that her son had been murdered and when
she went to the place of occurrence, she found dead body of her
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 4 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
son. Therefore, she is not an eye witness of the occurrence and
Basanti Devi (P.W.3) has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
Moreover, the injuries sustained by the deceased have been found
to be stab injuries which are not possible by use of tangi even if it
may be assumed that the appellant was seen fleeing with a tangi, it
does not correspond with the injuries caused to the deceased. It is
further submitted that no tangi was recovered from the possession
of the appellant and no other incriminating articles have been
seized from his conscious possession to connect him with the
alleged murder. The prosecution case started with raising
suspicion against the appellant and till conclusion of trial remains
suspicion and nothing more. It is trite that suspicion, howsoever,
grave it may be, cannot take place of legal proof. It is further
submitted that the learned trial court has accepted the bald
testimony of the informant as an eye witness of the occurrence
without going through her cross-examination and the earliest
version contained in the F.I.R. and other attending circumstances
of the case, therefore, has committed serious error of law. Hence,
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set
aside and appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charge
levelled against him.
10. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 5 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely
and aptly considered all the aspects of the case and evaluated the
evidence in threadbare manner and arrived at right conclusion
about the guilt of the appellant. There is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference.
This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
11. The only point for determination in this appeal is that as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellant suffers from any error of law calling for any interference
by way of this appeal or legally sustainable?
12. We have gone through the record of the case and perused the
impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
13. First of all, we have to appraise with the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in this case.
It appears that out of 13 witnesses examined in this case,
P.W.1 Kewal Rajwar is a witness of seizure list and proved his
signature as Ext.1. According to him, from the place of
occurrence, blood stained soil was seized by the police nearby the
dead body of Baneshwar Mahto.
P.W.3 Basanti Devi, P.W.4 Gahanu Mahto, P.W.7 Sudhir
Mahto and P.W.9 Govind Mahto have been declared hostile by
the prosecution and not supported the prosecution story at all and
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 6 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
also declined from any statement before police during
investigation.
P.W.2 Tulsi Mahto has only seen the dead body of deceased
at the place of occurrence at about 11 hours in the night where
mother of the deceased Baneswhar Mahto was weeping. There is
nothing else in his evidence.
P.W.5 Lilu Mahto and P.W.8 Suresh Prasad are uncle and
brother respectively of the deceased. They proved their signature
on inquest report as Ext.2 and Ext.2/1. These witnesses have
whispered nothing about any business rivalry between deceased
and the accused.
P.W.6 Hemlal Mahto has also seen the dead body of
deceased. Hearing the alarm raised by informant, he went to the
place of occurrence and saw injuries on neck of the deceased. He
has further proved his signature on seizure list of a tangi which
was recovered by police from the house of accused Chhotelal
Mahto but he has not seen whether it was blood stained or not. He
does not know the exact cause or motive for the occurrence but
later on he came to know that accused Chhotelal has assaulted to
the deceased by tangi.
P.W.10 Narayan Mahto also happens to be uncle of the
deceased. He has only seen the dead body of the deceased at the
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 7 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
hospital after post-mortem but stated nothing about assailant and
for what reason Baneshwar Mahto was murdered.
P.W.12 Dr. Shailendra Kumar has conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased and found following ante mortem
injuries on the person of the deceased :-
(i) Perforating wound :
(a) Wound of entrance 1.1/2" x 3/4" on left side back
of neck.
(b) Wound of exit 1.1/2" x 3/4" on the left flant of
neck.
Injury No.(ii) - penetrating wound 2" x 3" x bone deep on
the left side back of neck situated very closely to the injury
No.(i).
Injury No.(iii) - penetrating wound 1.1/2" x 3/4" x bone
deep on right side back of neck.
Margins of all injuries were sharp and clean cut.
On dissection :-
Sharp cuts of body of 5th cervical vertebrae were found
due to injury Nos.(i) and (iii). Spinal cord was found sharply
divided transversely into two by sharp cuts. Blood and clots
were found all around. Heart, stomach and bladder were
empty. The internal organs were pale.
Time elapsed since death :-
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 8 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
2 to 6 hours prior to post-mortem examination.
Cause of death :-
Death was due to spinal shock as a result of stab
injuries on neck caused by sharp cutting penetrating weapon.
In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that
barcha, bhala, penetrating rod can cause penetrating
wound. The injury found on the person of the injured
cannot be caused by fall on a glass or a piece of tin.
P.W.11 Upasi Devi @ Mahatvine is the informant cum
mother of the deceased. According to her evidence, on the date of
occurrence at about 09:00 a.m., she send her ailing son Baneshwar
to Topchanchi for visiting with doctor for his treatment giving
Rs.150/- to him. Thereafter, at about 10:00 a.m., on the same day,
she was going to her paddy field then heard hulla, she went
towards the place of occurrence and saw that her son was lying on
earth then she proceeded slight further and saw that Chhotan
Mahto was coming with a blood stained tangi and also saw that
Chhotan Mahto giving assault by tangi to her son, was fleeing
away. She noticed one injury on neck to her son Baneshwar
Mahto. According to her, the above incident took place due to
business rivalry between deceased and the accused.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 9 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
It appears that this witness in her fardbeyan has not claimed
to be an eye witness of the occurrence except she saw the accused
was fleeing away with a blood stained tangi.
In her examination-in-chief during trial, as stated above,
initially she has stated that she heard hulla coming from the road
side and saw her son was lying on the earth. Thereafter, she has
added that Chhotan Mahto was coming with a blood stained tangi
and she also saw that accused assaulted to her son by tangi on
neck and was fleeing. The above statements of this witness cannot
be reconciled together being self-contradictory.
Further, in her cross-examination, she has categorically
admitted that she was at her paddy field, when she heard hulla
coming towards G.T. road southern side from her field. She has
named the persons, who were raising alarm namely Kewal
Rajwar, Tulsi Mahto, Basanti Devi, Gahanu Mahto, Lilu Mahto,
Bhim Lal Mahto and Sudhir Mahto etc. but none of the above
witnesses have claimed to see the occurrence rather happens to be
either hearsay witnesses or turned hostile.
Her statement as an eye witness has also not been
corroborated through the evidence of I.O. (P.W.13) at para 21
wherein he has specifically stated that Upasi Devi (P.W.11) has
not stated before him that she has seen accused Chhotelal while
assaulting to her son and fleeing away.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 10 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
The above statement was never given in the fardbeyan nor in
the restatement of the informant.
P.W.13 S.I. Nagendra Ram is the Investigating Officer of
the case. According to him, on 21.10.2000 at about 11:30 a.m., he
came to know through rumour that in Village Pawapur a young
man has been murdered and several persons are assembled there.
He made S.D. Entry No.450 and along with other police personnel
proceeded towards the place of occurrence for verification of the
above information, where he recorded fardbeyan of informant
Upasi Devi and prepared inquest report of the deceased. He also
seized blood stained soil and prepared seizure list marked Ext.3/1.
He has proved fardbeyan as Ext.5. He inspected the place of
occurrence and recorded statement of witnesses and arrested the
accused. At the time of arrest, the accused Chotelal Mahto
confessed his guilt in presence of villagers and also a kulhadi was
seized from his house which alleged to have been used in the
occurrence. The seizure list is previously proved as Ext.3. He has
further proved formal F.I.R. as Ext.6. Carbon copy of inquest
report as Ext.7. After completion of investigation, he found
sufficient evidence against the accused and submitted charge-
sheet against him.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the
seized tangi has not been produced before the Court at the time of
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 11 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
his evidence and the same was not sent to F.S.L. for chemical
examination.
14. We have given anxious consideration to the overall evidence
adduced by the prosecution as discussed above. It is crystal clear
that none of the witnesses examined by prosecution are eye
witnesses of the occurrence. The informant Upasi Devi, mother of
the deceased, has materially improved her earlier version and
projected herself to be an eye witness of the occurrence at the time
of trial. She has simply claimed that she saw the accused was
fleeing away with a blood stained tangi. The seizure list (Ext.3) of
tangi has also been prepared by the I.O. which has been alleged to
be recovered from the house of accused but the seizure list
witness (P.W.1) of tangi has completely failed to assert that the
tangi was blood stained. Moreover, admittedly the said seized
tangi was never sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical
examination regarding presence of blood and its blood group etc.
in order to ascertain its use in commission of the alleged crime.
Therefore, bare confession of the accused has no relevance at all
in the eyes of law. Admittedly, P.W.11 has reached at the place of
occurrence after hearing hulla from other witnesses, i.e., P.W.1
Kewal Rajwar, P.W.2 Tulsi Mahto, P.W.3 Basanti Devi, P.W.4
Gahanu Mahto, P.W.5 Lilu Mahto, and P.W.7 Sudhir Mahto who
have also not claimed to have seen the accused fleeing with a
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 12 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
tangi. Even if, it may be assumed that the accused was fleeing
away with a tangi that itself is not conclusive proof of commission
of murder by him. The prosecution story also does not find
support/corroboration from the injuries sustained by deceased as
mentioned in the post-mortem report. It is opined by the
conducting doctor that the injuries sustained by the deceased was
penetrating wound which may caused by barcha, bhala,
penetrating rod and such type of penetrating wound cannot be
caused by use of a tangi. None of the witnesses have seen the
accused while causing injuries to the deceased by tangi. In this
view of the matter also, prosecution story becomes absolutely
doubtful as against the appellant.
15. In view of above discussion and reasons, we are of the firm view
that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law
while appreciating the evidence of witnesses available on record
and has given undue weightage to the evidence of P.W.11 Upasi
Devi, who happens to be mother of the deceased, without
considering the contents of F.I.R. which is her earliest version and
the evidence of I.O. (P.W.13) who has also categorically stated
that Upasi Devi is not an eye witness of the occurrence. The
learned trial court has further failed to appreciate that the motive
behind the occurrence has also not been proved by any concrete
evidence. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the impugned
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 13 |14
2025:JHHC:32701-DB
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from
serious error of law and based upon beyond the weight of
evidence available on record which is hereby set aside and this
appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled
against him.
16. Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail
bond and sureties are also discharged.
17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
18. Let a copy of this judgment along with learned trial court record
be sent back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 30/10/2025
Sachin / NAFR
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.390 of 2003 P a g e 14 |14
