Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 897 of 2002
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
10.12.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
F.T.C.-II, Bermo at Tenughat, in Sessions Trial No. 175/90 /
141/02]
Gopi Mahto, S/o Shri Girdhar Mahto, resident of
Barmashiya, P.S. - Jaridih, District - Bokaro.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 21.08.2025 Pronounced on 15.09.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sankalp Goswami, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P.
for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.12.2002 passed by learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bermo at Tenughat,
District - Bokaro in S.T. No. 175/90 / 141/02,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held
guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302
of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
the basis of fardbeyan of one Tulsi Mahato (P.W.-6)
recorded by A.S.I. B.Tanti Sector-IV P.S. at Bokaro
General Hospital on 05.03.1990 at 11:30 AM, Jaridih
P.S. Case No. 18 of 1990 corresponding to G.R. No.
145 of 1990 was registered for the offence under
Section 324, 307/34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 302
/ 34 of the I.P.C., which was added vide order dated
20.03.1990. It is alleged that on 04.03.1990 at about
4:30 P.M., the informant along with his father Jyoti
Mahato (since deceased) and uncle Girdhari Mahato
were talking in their courtyard. The uncle of the
informant was asking for a sambal to fix a peg, which
was denied, on this informant's uncle's son Gopi
Mahto and son-in-law Kharu Mahto also arrived
there. Gopi was armed with tangi and aim to assault
to father of the informant by tangi on neck, which was
warded off by his father by turning his head, but it
causes injury on forehead and raptured the same, due
to said injury, the father of the informant fell down
and became unconscious. The informant has further
alleged that when his father fell down after sustaining
injuries, then the accused persons also chased to
assault him, but he was saved by Gyan Mahto (PW-7)
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
and Kalipad Mahto (P.W.-8), but the accused persons
did not obey the witnesses and assaulted to his father
by tangi. When the informant was chased for
assaulting him by tangi then he fled away with the
assistance of Gyan Mahto (P.W.-7). It is alleged that
during course of treatment at Bokaro General
Hospital, injured father of the informant died.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against Girdhari Mahto and Gopi Mahto
(appellant), who denied the charges and claimed to be
tried.
5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether 10 witnesses and also adduced following
documentary evidence:-
Exhibit-1 : FIR.
Exhibit-2 : Fardbeyan of Tulsi Mahto.
Exhibit-3 : Signature of Arjun Mahto
(P.W.-4) on Inquest Report of
Jyoti Mahto.
Exhibit-3/1 : Signature of Janki Sao on
Inquest Report of Jyoti Mahto.
Exhibit-4 : Signature of Tulsi Mahto on
his Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-5 : Complete Fardbeyan of Tulsi
Mahto.
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
Exhibit-6 : Seizure List of blood-stained
soil seized from the place of
occurrence.
6. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been
adduced by the defence rather fardbeyan of one
Juthan Mahto (P.W.-9) dated 06.03.1990 for the same
occurrence has been brought on record, which has
been marked as Exhibit-A. The case of the appellant
is denial from the occurrence and false implication. It
is also pleaded that appellant Gopi Mahto is CCL
employee and at the time of occurrence, he was not
present in his house, rather he returned later and
implicated in this case due to enmity.
7. After conclusion of trial, both the appellants were held
guilty and sentenced for the offence under Section
302 of the I.P.C. with aid of Section 109 of I.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the
impugned judgment has vehemently argued that
altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled
against them, out of them, P.W.-1, Ashish Kumar Ray
and P.W.-2 Ajay Kumar Sinha are Advocate Clerks
and formal witnesses.
9. It is further submitted that Chinta Devi (P.W.-3) is the
wife of the informant (PW-6), Gyan Mahto (P.W.-7),
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
Kalipado Mahto (P.W.-8), and Juthan Mahto (P.W.-9)
have not supported the prosecution story as stated by
informant and declared hostile or tendered, although
they are named in the FIR as eye-witnesses of
occurrence. P.W.-10 Ramanand Singh is the
Investigating Officer of this case. The Doctor, who has
conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased,
has not been examined. P.W.-4 Arjun Mahato and
P.W.-5 Janki Sahu are witnesses of inquest report.
10. Therefore, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence are
only P.W.-3 & P.W.-6, who happens to be daughter-in-
law and son of the deceased and highly interested
witnesses. The testimony of P.W.-3 & P.W.-6 does not
find corroboration from the evidence of other
witnesses to whom the incident was disclosed at the
earliest by these witnesses.
11. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged on the
next day of occurrence at about 11:00 AM after due
deliberation about the actual assailant of the
deceased. Real fact is that the appellant is CCL
employee and on the date of occurrence, he was not
present at his home and this fact is also corroborated
by several prosecution witnesses, whose testimony
cannot be doubted.
12. It is further submitted that the genesis, manner and
part of the body aimed for giving axe blow has not
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
been conclusively proved by the prosecution. The
cause of death is also not proved due to non-
examination of the Medical Officer, who has
conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the
deceased. Therefore, the prosecution story is
absolutely doubtful as regard complicity of present
appellant, rather there was specific allegation against
the father of the appellant namely, Girdhari Mahto
with whom scuffle took place with the deceased and
in that course of incident in a sudden fight, the
deceased was assaulted by Girdhari Mahto (since
deceased). The implication of the appellant Gopi
Mahto is after thought and based on due deliberation
and concoction by the informant and his wife. Other
eye-witnesses of occurrence, whose presence is
mentioned in the FIR, have been examined as P.W.-7,
P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 specifically stated that only
Girdhari Mahto is assailant of the deceased. This
aspect of the case has not been considered by the
learned trial court and no reason has been recorded
for disbelieving the evidence of P.W.-7, P.W.-8 and
P.W.-9, who immediately approached to the place of
occurrence and it was also disclosed to them by P.W.-
3 and P.W.-6 that Girdhari Mahto has assaulted to
the deceased on sudden scuffle in connection with
demand of sambal. Therefore, it is prayed that the
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
impugned judgment and order may be set aside and
this appeal may be allowed.
13. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State
while refuting the aforesaid contentions raised on
behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned
trial court has very wisely and aptly analyze and
appreciate the evidence of eye witnesses i.e. P.W.-3
and P.W.-6. There is no reason to falsely implicate the
appellant. The trial court has committed no illegality
or infirmity in arriving at the guilt of the appellant for
the offence of murder of the deceased. This appeal has
no merit and fit to be dismissed.
14. We have gone through the record of the case along
with impugned judgment in the light of contentions
raised on behalf of respective parties.
15. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses were examined
by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled
against the accused persons.
16. P.W.-1 : Ashish Kumar Rai is an Advocate Clerk and
a formal witness, who has proved the formal F.I.R. as
Exhibit-1.
17. P.W.-2 : Ajay Kumar Sinha is also an Advocate Clerk
and a formal witness, who has proved the
endorsement of the then O/C of Sector-IV Bokaro P.S.
for registration of F.I.R. as Exhibit-2.
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
18. P.W.-3 : Chinta Devi is the wife of the informant
Tulsi Mahto (P.W.-6) and eye witness of the
occurrence. According to her evidence, it was Sunday
evening at about 4:30 P.M. She was sitting on
Chaukhat of her Courtyard along with her husband.
She has further alleged that there was a dispute
regarding sambal started going on between her father-
in-law Jyoti Mahto and elder father-in-law Girdhari
Mahto. Meanwhile, Gopi Mahto, son of Girdhari
Mahto came there and ask his father as to why scuffle
is going on, then Girdhari Mahto told to kill Jyoti
Mahto, upon this, Gopi Mahto went inside the house,
brought a tangi and gave a tangi blow on the head of
her father-in-law Jyoti Mahto, causing severe injuries
and he became unconscious. Thereafter accused
persons fled away. Her husband brought the injured
on auto-rickshaw to Bokaro General Hospital, where
her father-in-law died.
In her cross-examination, he has declined to
know Juthan Mahto and Gyan Mahto, although her
marriage was solemnized 6-7 years ago, although
Juthan Mahto is own brother of the deceased. Her
statement was recorded by police after two days of the
occurrence. She also admits that Gopi Mahto works in
Jarandih Colliery and on the date of occurrence, he
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
returned from his duty. According to her, at the time
of occurrence, she along with her husband was
present in the home. She also admits that after 1-1½
hours of the occurrence, her father-in-law was
brought to the hospital. None of the neighbours came
to her courtyard at the time of occurrence.
19. P.W.-4 Arjun Mahto is the witness of the Inquest
Report, which was prepared in his presence and
proved his signature on the Inquest Report as Exhibit-
3.
20. P.W.-5 Janki Sao is also witness of the Inquest
Report and proved his signature on the Inquest
Report as Exhibit-3/1.
21. P.W.-6 Tulsi Mahto is another eye-witness of the
occurrence, who happens to be informant of the case.
His fardbeyan was recorded at the earliest at Bokaro
General Hospital by the police on 05.03.1990 at 11:30
A.M. According to evidence, on 04.03.1990 at 4:30
P.M., he along with his wife was standing in the
courtyard. A dispute regarding sambal was going on
between his father and uncle Girdhari Mahto. His
father was declining to give the sambal to his uncle,
as such, scuffle was going on, meanwhile, Gopi Mahto
along with his brother-in-law Kharu Mahto came
there then his uncle Girdhari Mahto ordered to kill
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
Jyoti Mahto by firing. Upon this, Gopi Mahto went
inside the house and brought out a tangi and gave
tangi blow on neck of his father with intention to kill
him, then his father went upon a tangi blow, causing
injury on head, due to which his father fell down and
became unconscious. Thereafter, accused persons fled
away. He has further deposed that he brought his
father to Bokaro General Hospital, where police
arrived on next day i.e. 05.03.1990 and his statement
was recorded. He has proved his signature and
identified the same, marked as Exhibit-4. Thereafter,
his father died. The police sent the dead body for
post-mortem at Sub Divisional Hospital, Chas and
also recorded re-statement.
In his cross-examination, this witness clearly
states that his father Jyoti Mahto had three brothers
namely, Girdhari Mahto, Bhushan Mahto and Juthan
Mahto and all are living together in the same house,
situated at same place. He further admits that within
10-15 minutes, he brought a tempo and went to
Bokaro General Hospital along with his injured father,
which is situated at a distance of 30 Km. He further
admits that his uncle Juthan Mahto has come to
Bokaro General Hospital along with him. He further
admits that on the date of occurrence, Gopi Mahto
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
was sitting ideal in the house and working nowhere.
He further admits that the scuffle between his father
and Girdhari Mahto last up to 10 minutes. He was
also present there, till the inflicting of tangi blow to
his father. He further admits that Gopi Mahto came
from outside and enquired to his father about the
matter, then went into his room. He further admits
that on the date of occurrence since 7:30 PM to next
day at about 11:30 A.M., he was in hospital to look
after his father. He has denied the suggestion of
defence that he has not seen the occurrence, rather
returned to home later on and along with his uncle
Juthan Mahto came to hospital, where at the earliest
statement of Juthan Mahto was recorded by the police
and he has manipulated a false story against the
accused Gopi Mahto.
22. P.W.-7 Gyan Mahto. He has deposed that on hearing
hulla from his house, he went towards the house of
Jyoti Mahto and saw that scuffle was going on
between Jyoti Mahto and Girdhari Mahto for a
sambal. Both were snatching sambal from each other,
which was taken by Jyoti Mahto, who gave sambal
blow to Girdhari causing injury on his hand then
Girdhari Mahto entered into his room and brought
out a small axe and gave an axe blow on head of the
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
Jyoti Mahto. This witness has been declared hostile
by the prosecution to the extent of contradiction that
his statement before the police was recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that
Tulsi and his wife told him that a dispute about
sambal was going between Girdhari Mahto and Jyoti
Mahto, meanwhile, son of Girdhari Mahto namely,
Gopi Mahto arrived and on order of his father, Gopi
Mahto has given axe blow to Jyoti Mahto, due to
which he became unconscious and in the hospital, in
course of treatment, he died.
In his cross-examination by defence, this witness
states that on the date of occurrence Tulsi Mahto
came after some time of occurrence and Gopi Mahto
was on his duty at CCL, Colliery, Jarangdih, which is
situated at a distance of 10-11 Km. from his village.
He also admits that his statement was not recorded
by any police officer, rather Dy. S.P. has recorded his
statement.
23. P.W.-8 Kali Mahto has stated that his house is
situated at a distance of about 170 steps from the
house of Jyoti Mahto. He heard some hulla coming
from the house of Jyoti Mahto, then he went there
and saw that Jyoti Mahto was injured on his head,
which was stitched by cloth. Jyoti Mahto was being
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
assisted by wife of Gyani Mahto and Tulsi Mahto. He
asked about the occurrence then wife of Tulsi Mahto
disclosed that Girdhari Mahto has given tangi blow on
head of Jyoti Mahto. Thereafter, this witness went to
his house and brought Dettol and applied on head of
the injured and laid down him on a cot. This witness
has also been declared hostile by the prosecution
towards his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
wherein he has stated that Tulsi Mahto and his wife
disclosed to him just after the occurrence that there
was a dispute between Jyoti Mahto and Girdhari
Mahto for a sambal, meanwhile, Gopi Mahto came
there and on order of Girdhari Mahto gave a tangi
blow on the head of Jyoti Mahto causing severe cut
injury on head, due to which, he became
unconscious.
In his cross-examination by the defence, he
admits that he usually lives in Dhanbad and some
days prior to occurrence, he has come to his home.
On the date of occurrence, Gopi Mahto was not
present and he was on duty at Jarangdih Colliery.
24. P.W.-9 Juthan Mahto is own brother of the deceased.
Although, this witness has been tendered by the
prosecution, but in cross-examination by defence, he
has specifically stated that at the earliest his
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
statement was recorded by the police at Bokaro
General Hospital in presence of other family members.
Thereafter, statement of his nephew Tulsi Mahto and
his wife were recorded by police. He has further stated
that Gopi Mahto was working at Jarangdih Colliery
from before the occurrence and used to come to house
after some interval about 6-7 weeks. On the date of
occurrence, he was not present, rather he was at
Jarangdih on his duty. He has seen the occurrence
and Tulsi Mahto arrived later at the place of
occurrence.
25. P.W.-10 Ramanand Singh is the Investigating Officer
of this case. According to his evidence, on 06.03.1990,
he was working as an Officer-in-charge of Jaridih
Police Station. On that day, fardbeyan of one Tulsi
Mahto recorded by ASI B. Tanti of Sector-IV police
station, Bokaro was received for registration of case
and there was endorsement for registration of case
put by S.I. Guneshwar Prasad Singh of Sector-IV P.S.,
which is marked as Exhibit-5. Accordingly, Jaridih
P.S. Case No. 18/90 dated 06.03.1990 u/s 324, 326,
307/34 of the I.P.C. was registered and he took
charge of the investigation. He proceeded to the place
of occurrence, where Chinta Devi, wife of informant
met him and statement was recorded and he
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
inspected the place of occurrence, which is courtyard
of house of informant. Tulsi Mahto having main door
towards East, where he saw blood-stained earth and
it was disclosed by Chinta Devi (P.W.-3) that her
cousin bhaisur Gopi Mahto has assaulted to her
father-in-law and blood is laying on earth. He seized
some blood-stained earth in presence of witnesses,
Bharat Chandra Sao and Vakil Prasad Nayak, which
is marked as Exhibit-4. He has recorded the
statement of other witnesses acquainted with the
facts of the case, arrested accused persons and
finding sufficient evidence submitted charge-sheet for
the offence under Sections 324, 326, 307/34 of the
I.P.C.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that
from the place of occurrence, police station is situated
at a distance of 15 Km. Prior to 6th March, 1990,
receiving the fardbeyan of informant, he had no
knowledge about the occurrence from any source. He
also went to record the statement of injured at Bokaro
General Hospital, but due to huge police force
administration, he did not go there.
He has denied the suggestion of defence that prior
to receipt of fardbeyan of Juthan Mahto (brother of
deceased) on 07.03.1990 from Sector - IV Police
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
Station, Bokaro, he had no knowledge about the
occurrence, rather he admits that the fardbeyan of
Juthan Mahto was registered as S.D. Entry No. 123
dated 07.03.1990, which is marked as Exhibit-A on
the request of the defence. He has also recorded the
statement of Gyan Mahto, who happens to be brother
of the deceased. He further admits that on the date of
occurrence, accused Gopi Mahto was working at CCL,
Jarangdih and he has also conducted raid for his
arrest at Jarangdih. He has not sent the blood-stained
earth for chemical examination at FSL.
26. We have given anxious consideration to overall factual
spectrum of the case. It appears that in his fardbeyan,
the informant (P.W.-6) has clearly stated that the
tangi blow was given by Gopi Mahto, but the scuffle
arose between Jyoti Mahto (father of the informant)
and Girdhari Mahto in connection with demand of a
sambal. The informant (P.W.-6) has specifically
claimed in the FIR itself that the accused persons also
chased him to assault, but he was saved by Gyan
Mahto and Kali Mahto, P.W.-7 & P.W.-8 respectively.
He further states that Kali Mahto and Gyan Mahto
also intervened and forbade the accused persons from
assaulting to his father inspite of that, the accused
persons assaulted his father by tangi. He has also
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
claimed that he managed to flee away from the place
of occurrence with the help of Gyan Mahto (P.W.-7).
Thereafter, the injured father of the informant was
brought to Bokaro General Hospital immediately
where his fardbeyan was recorded. In the FIR, there is
no whisper about presence of P.W.-3 Chinta Devi (wife
of informant) at the time of happening of the
occurrence.
27. The informant Tulsi Mahto (P.W.-6) in his evidence
during trial has stated that on the date of occurrence
at about 4:30 PM, he along with his wife was standing
in the courtyard when the occurrence took place. He
further states that Girdhari Mahto was scuffling,
meanwhile, Gopi Mahto and son-in-law of Girdhari
Mahto namely, Kharu Mahto also came there then
Girdhari Mahto asked Gopi Mahto to kill Jyoti Mahto
by firing, but Gopi Mahto came with a tangi and gave
a tangi blow on his father with intention to kill him.
Thereafter, accused persons fled away. He has very
cleverly omitted the name of eye witnesses, who were
present on the spot as mentioned in the FIR namely,
Kharu Mahto and Gyan Mahto, but admits in his
cross-examination that he along with Juthan Mahto
(elder brother of the deceased) came to Bokaro
General Hospital on tempo.
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
28. The testimony of P.W.-6, if compared with the
testimony of his wife Chinta Devi (P.W.-3), it emerges
that she was also sitting on chaukhat of her courtyard
along with her husband and scuffle was going on
between her father-in-law Jyoti Mahto and Girdhari
Mahto. Meanwhile, Gopi Mahto arrived with a tangi
and assaulted Jyoti Mahto on direction of Girdhari
Mahto to kill him by tangi.
29. It is admitted fact that Jyoti Mahto (deceased) has
three other real brothers namely, Girdhari Mahto,
Bhushan Mahto and Juthan Mahto, but she has
declined to identify Juthan Mahto and Gyan Mahto,
although her marriage was solemnized about 6-7
years ago from the date of occurrence. She also
admits that police have recorded her statement after
two days of occurrence. It is also admitted that
accused Gopi Mahto returned from duty on the same
day. She has also given a serious jolt to the specific
testimony of her husband by saying that at the time of
occurrence none of the neighbours came to her
courtyard to intervene and save them.
30. On the other hand, contrary to it, P.W.-6 clearly
states that his neighbours and family members Kali
Pad Mahto and Gyan Mahto were present on the spot
and they intervened and saved him, but the accused
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
Gopi Mahto assaulted his father by tangi on his head.
In the above circumstances, the testimony of P.W.-3
itself appears to be doubtful in view of the fact that
earliest statement was given by the informant before
the police while recording his fardbeyan.
31. In the above context, we have to consider the evidence
of P.W.-7 Gyan Mahto, who has clearly stated that
Girdihari Mahto and Jyoti Mahto were quarrelling for
sambal, meanwhile, Girdhari Mahto entered into the
room and brought axe and gave an axe blow on the
head of Jyoti Mahto. This witness has been declared
hostile only to the extent that he has attributed
culpability against Girdhari Mahto alone and not to
the Gopi Mahto. There is no doubt that this witness is
also interrogated by the Investigating Officer during
investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the
Investigating Officer (P.W.-10) is also examined this
case, but above material contradiction appearing in
the evidence of this witness has not been got
explained by the prosecution by the Investigating
Officer. Therefore, there remains no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of this witness.
32. Similarly, P.W.-8 Kali Mahto has also been declared
hostile only on the point that he has attributed the
culpability of Girdhari Mahto, who gave axe blow to
the deceased, resulting in his death.
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
33. It is quite surprising that P.W.-7 Gyan Mahto, P.W.-8,
Kali Mahto and P.W.-9 Juthan Mahto, who happens
to be close relative and residing adjacent to the place
of occurrence and admit their presence at the place of
occurrence at the relevant time and declared hostile
by prosecution only to the extent that P.W.-3 Chinta
Devi, wife of the informant, has disclosed to them
about the occurrence that a dispute regarding sambal
was going on between Girdhari Mahto and her father-
in-law Jyoti Mahto, meanwhile, Girdhari Mahto
brought out a tangi and assaulted on head of her
father-in-law and they have not named the accused
Gopi Mahto as assailant of the deceased, but the
prosecution has not drawn attention of the
Investigating Officer (P.W.-10) towards such a vital
contradiction appearing in the evidence of aforesaid
witnesses. Therefore, the testimony of these witnesses
cannot be bruised aside from consideration.
34. Attention of Investigating Officer (P.W.10) has not
been drawn against the material contradictions
appearing in the evidence of this witness to the extent
of involvement of Gopi Mahto. At this juncture, the
evidence of P.W.-9 Juthan Mahto, whose presence is
also admitted at the relevant time of occurrence
cannot be ignored, although his fardbeyan was also
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
recorded in this case (Exhibit-A), which appears to be
hit by provisions of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., but in
his evidence before Court, he has said the same thing
that the Girdhari Mahto was assailant of the
deceased. The occurrence took place due to scuffle
between Girdhari Mahto and Jyoti Mahto in
connection with demand of a sambal and Girdhari
Mahto gave an axe blow to the deceased. The
testimony of P.W.-9 has also not been rebutted by the
prosecution in any manner.
35. From the above critical analysis of the testimony of
ocular witnesses, there is no reason to discredit the
testimony of P.W.-7, 8 & 9 as regards the genesis,
manner, place, mode of assault and involvement of
accused persons.
36. It further transpires that the testimony of P.W.-3 and
P.W.-6 suffers from suppression / concealment of
material facts. In the FIR, presence of P.W.-7, 8 & 9 is
specifically mentioned, but during trial, the presence
of these witnesses has been declined and P.W.-3 even
resiled from identifying her own elder father-in-law
Juthan Mahto (P.W.-9).
37. It is also admitted fact that the deceased was brought
to Bokaro General Hospital on the very date of
occurrence in the night, but statement of the
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
informant was recorded in the next day morning at
11:00 AM. Therefore, there was every chance and
opportunity to the informant to involve the son and
son-in-law of the main accused Girdhari Mahto in this
case.
38. It is admitted that the appellant Gopi Mahto was a
CCL employee at the relevant time, but the informant
deliberately and in a hostile manner stated that Gopi
Mahto is sitting idle at home and does nothing. The
learned trial court has whispered nothing in the entire
judgment as to why the testimony of P.W.-7, P.W.-8
and P.W.-9, whose presence is admitted at the time of
lodging of FIR should be discarded or disbelieved. The
non-consideration of testimony of P.W.-7, P.W.-8 and
P.W.-9 in context of material contradictions appearing
in the evidence of P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 as discussed
above, the learned trial court has committed serious
error of law and arrived at wrong conclusion.
39. In view of above discussion and reasons, we find
merits in this appeal and substance in the point of
argument raised on behalf of appellant. The
prosecution itself has produced two distinct and
different story as regards actual involvement in the
alleged offence of the appellant. Therefore, the view
which goes in favour of the accused must be preferred
2025:JHHC:28137-DB
and accepted. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence of the appellant passed by the
learned trial court is hereby set aside. The appellant is
acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
40. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
41. The appellant is on bail, as such, he is discharged
from liability of bail bond and sureties shall also
discharged.
42. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
43. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 15 t h September, 2025.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
