[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bidyadar Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 569 of 2002
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2002 and sentence dated
07.06.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in
Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2000]
--------
Bidyadar Mahato, S/o. Bahadur Mahto, R/o. Village- Kanak Chas, P.S.-
Chandankayari, Dist.- Bokaro. ... ... 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. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGEMENT
C.A.V. on 23.03.2026 Pronounced on 16/04/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:
1. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 04.06.2002 and 07.06.2002 respectively
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial
No. 55 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held
guilty for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code
and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under
Section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for ten years for the offence under
Section 307 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences are directed to run
concurrently without default stipulation.
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
Another accused, namely, Bahadur Mahto, who faced the trial jointly,
got benefit of doubt and was acquitted from the charges.
Factual Matrix:-
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 30.12.1998 at about
2:00 PM, the informant Anantlal Chakravorty alongwith Sanat
Chakravorty wen to the house of Vidyadhar Mahto (appellant) for
complaining as to why they assaulted their she-goat, upon this Vidyadhar
Mahto stabbed in the stomach of Sanat Chakravorty on left side. It is also
alleged that when the informant intervened, then Vidyadhar Mahto
pierced knife in his stomach on left side. The informant raised alarm than
his father Dhananjay Chakravorty and neighbours rushed to the place of
occurrence to rescue them but the accused Vidyadhar Mahto fled away.
Both the injured were brought to Baramasia T.O.P., where in the way
Sanat Chakravarty succumbed to his injuries. The fardbeyan of Anantlal
Chakravorty (informant) was recorded by the officer in-charge, Baramasia
TOP in presence of his father Dhananjay Chakravorty. It is also alleged
that Vidyadhar Mahto with an intention to kill the informant and Sanat
Chakravorty has inflicted knife blow to them.
3. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Chandankayari
(Baramasia) P.S. Case No. 138 of 1998 dated 30.12.1998 was registered
for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After completion of the investigation of the case, charge-sheet was
submitted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the
I.P.C. the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No. 55
of 2000 was registered.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
5. The present appellant and co-accused denied the charges levelled
against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned
judgment and order of sentence was passed.
6. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
Submissions on behalf of appellant: -
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailing the
impugned judgement has contended that the learned Trial Court has
miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and convicted the
appellant beyond weight of evidence. It is further submitted that the knife
allegedly used in commission of assault to the injured persons including
the deceased was never produced during trial. Moreover, no chemical
examination report of the blood stained knife was brought on record to
connect the alleged weapon for offence with the occurrence. The
prosecution has also failed to prove the manner of occurrence and place of
occurrence and also use of weapon like lathi or knife. It is further
elaborated that PW-3 Namita Chakravarty has claimed to see her father-
in-law Dhananjay Chakravarty was assaulted by Bahadur Mahto by lathi,
similarly PW-4 Dhananjay Chakravarty, the injured has also stated that he
was assaulted by lathi on left side of chest and also by fist by Bahadur
Mahto. The injured-cum-informant himself has not been able to state that
he was assaulted by a knife blow, which absolutely falsifies the
prosecution story. It is further submitted that the name of another co-
accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R who was also dragged in this case
on false evidence of witness but acquitted by the learned Trial Court itself.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
Therefore, in view of contradictory testimony of witnesses, conviction of
appellant suffers from serious illegality. It is further submitted that as per
the evidence of eye witness-cum-injured, it is crystal clear that the
informant party including the deceased went to the house of the appellant
and started scuffling with him on trivial matter of cattle grazing and single
blow by knife was sustained by the deceased. The occurrence took place
in sudden manner without pre-meditation and intention to cause death of
the deceased. Therefore, the whole spectrum of the case is covered not
under section 302 of the I.P.C. but Exception IV appended to the
definition of murder and offence falls under section 304 of the I.P.C. As
such, at best the offence falls under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and
section 307 of the I.P.C., for which the appellant has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years. The maximum sentence for the offence under
Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. is also 10 years. The appellant has also
undergone imprisonment for 06 years, 06 months and 28 days during
investigation/trial and post-conviction. Hence, the appellant has
sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Accordingly, his conviction and
sentence requires to be altered and modified. It is further submitted that
the occurrence is of the year 1998 and now more than two decades have
been lapsed, both the parties are residing peacefully and have settled in
their life. Therefore, sending the appellant to judicial custody to serve
remaining period of punishment would not serve any useful purpose rather
it will ruin his family. Therefore, in the matter of sentence, a lenient view
may be taken. Accordingly, this appeal may be allowed.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
Submissions on behalf of State:-
8. Per contra; learned A.P.P. defending the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence of the appellant has argued on merits and has
submitted that there is no legal force in the point of argument raised on
behalf of the appellant. There is clear cut evidence of eye witness
including the informant that the deceased was stabbed by a knife on his
stomach by the present appellant. The informant was also assaulted by
knife which finds corroboration from injury report with intention to kill
him but he survived. The injuries found on the body of the deceased was
sufficient to cause death.
Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference in
this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
It is further submitted that factual aspect of the case clearly indicates
that the scuffle broke between the parties on trivial matter of cattle grazing
and complain was raised by the informant party regarding his she-goat, to
which the appellant got enraged and assaulted by knife to the deceased as
well as the informant, therefore, the above aspect may be considered in
this appeal.
9. We have gone through the records of case along with impugned
judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.
10. On the basis of rival points or contentions of both the parties, the only
point for consideration in this appeal emerges that "as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal or
not?"
Analysis, discussions and reasons: -
11. Before adverting to record any finding on the above point, we have to
apprise with the evidences available on record adduced by the
prosecution during trial.
12. It appears that altogether 09 witnesses were examined in this case by
the prosecution:-
P.W.-1 Bhavtosh Banerjee
P.W.-2 Basu Das
P.W.-3 Namita Chakraborty
P.W.-4 Dahananjay Chakraborty
P.W.-5 Nibaran Mukherjee
P.W.-6 Mahadev Banerjee
P.W.-7 Anant Chakraborty (Informant-cum-injured)
P.W.-8 Ashok Kumar Singh
P.W.-9 Dr. R. P. Verma
13. Apart from the oral testimony of above witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:-
i) Exhibit-1: Inquest report.
ii) Exhibit-1/a: Seizure of blood stained knife
iii) Exhibit-1/b: Seizure of blood stained soil
iv) Exhibit-2: Fardbeyan
v) Exhibit-3: Signature of PW-6 Mahadev Banerjee on seizure list
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
vi) Exhibit-3/A: Signature of PW-7 Anantlal Chakraborty on
fardbeyan.
vii) Exhibit-3/B: Signature of PW-4 Dhananjay Chakraborty on
fardbeyan.
viii) Exhibit-4: Formal F.I.R.
ix) Exhibit-5: Post mortem report of Sanat Chakraborty
14. PW-1 Bhavtosh Banerjee arrived at the place of occurrence after
hearing halla on 30.12.1998 at about 2:00 PM and saw injury on the left
side of abdomen of Sanat Chakraborty (deceased) and Anant Chakraborty
(informant). Anant Chakraborty disclosed him that Vidyadhar Mahto had
stabbed both of them. He is also the witness of inquest report which is
mentioned as Exhibit-1 and proved his signature.
PW-2 Basu Das has also arrived at the place of occurrence after
hearing halla and saw the injured persons were lying and were taken to
hospital. According to him, Dhananjay Chakraborty (father of the
informant) and Anantlal Chakraborty told him that Vidyadhar Mahto had
stabbed them by knife, therefore, this witness is also hearsay witness of
the occurrence.
PW-3 Namita Chakraborty is the wife of Sanat Chakraborty . She
also came out from the house after hearing halla and heard that Bahadur
Mahto instigated Vidyadhar Mahto to assault. Thereafter, Vidyadhar
Mahto stabbed in the abdomen of Sanat Chakraborty and also in the
abdomen of Anantlal Chakraborty. Her father-in-law Dhananjay
Chakraborty intervened but he was also assaulted by lathi by Bahadur
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
Mahto. She also admits the enmity between the accused and the
informant party.
PW-4 Dhananjay Chakraboty is the father of the informant. He also
came out of the house on hearing halla and saw Vidyadhar Mahto
stabbed Sanat Chakraborty and Anantlal Chakraborty on left side of the
stomach. He was also assaulted by Bahadur Mahto on left side of his
chest with lathi.
PW-5 Nibaran Mukherjee also came out of his house on hearing
halla and saw Sanat Chakraborty and Anantlal Chakraborty were
sustained severe injuries on their left portion of body. Anantlal
Chakraborty told him that Vidyadhar Mahto has stabbed him in stomach.
He is also witness of inquest report. Admittedly, he is not the witness of
the occurrence rather immediately came to know about the occurrence
from injured person.
PW-6 Mahadev Banerjee also came to the place of occurrence after
hearing halla and it was disclosed by Anantlal Chakraborty that
Vidyadhar Mahto stabbed both of them. Blood stained soil was seized by
the police and seizure list was prepared. He has proved his signature in
seizure list as Exhibit-3.
PW-7 Anantlal Chakraborty is the most important witness of this
case, who happens to be sole sufferer injured. According to his evidence,
Vidyadhar Mahto stabbed him and Sanat Chakraborty on instigation of
his father Bahadur Mahto. He and his brother Sanat Chakraborty both
sustained knife injury on their left side of stomach. He has further proved
that his fardbeyan was recorded by the police at T.O.P. at about 4:00 PM.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
He has proved his signature as Exhibit-3/A and signature of his father as
Exhibit-3/B.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that there was
enmity with the accused since last 4-5 years regarding construction of
wall. He also states in his cross-examination that he was wearing a Ganji
(Baniyan) and Lungi at the time of incident and there were brief holes in
his Ganji (Baniyan). His Ganji (Baniyan), underwear and lungi were
stained with blood. His brother was also bwearing a ganji (Baniyan), full-
shirt, underwear and lungi and there were brief holes in his shirt and
ganji (Baniyan).
PW-8 S.I. Ashok Kumar Singh has deposed that on 30.12.1998, he
was posted as Officer in-charge of Barmasia O.P. and assumed the charge
of investigation of this case. He recorded Fardbeyan of the informant
Anantlal Chakraborty at about 4:00 P.M. He also prepared inquest report
of the deceased Sanat Chakraborty in presence of witness which is
marked as Exhibit-1. He further states that on the same day at about 5:00
P.M. Vidyadhar Mahto surrendered at police station and on search, a
blood stained knife was recovered from his right side of pocket of full-
pant. He also prepared the seizure list of blood stained knife marked as
Exhibit-1/A. He has exhibited the place of occurrence and also collected
blood stained soil and prepared seizure list in presence of witness marked
as Exihibit-1/B. He has further proved formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4.
In his cross examination, he fairly admits that name of Bahadur
Mahto, father of accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R. In their
statement, also no witnesses have taken the name of Bahadur Mahto as
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
assailant of any person. He also admits that FSL report of blood stained
knife was also not received.
PW-9 Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma has conducted the autopsy of
the dead body of the deceased Sanat Chakraborty and has found the
following:
i) On External examination: blood stains on the left palm and on
left forearm and left side of abdomen. The injury was single
stab wound 2 ½" x 1" abdominal cavity thereon deep and on
left side of upper abdominal wall in midcaricular line placed
vergicaly with slit shaped with two acute angles above and
below.
ii) On Dis-section: the abdominal cavity was full of blood and
blood clots. The soft tissues in the interior wall at the side of
wound were torn and lacerated and blood and blood clots were
intermingled.
iii) The peritoneum wall was torn and lacerated and diserted and
contained blood mixed and fluid. He has also opined that injury
was ante-mortem caused by sharp edge object having tow edges
may be by knife and cause of death- due to cardio respiratory
failure due to massive haemorrhage, shock and injury to the
heart and intestine.
This witness has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit-5.
15. On the other hand, case of the defence is denial from the occurrence
and due to previous enmity. However, no oral or documentary evidence
has been adduced by the defence.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
16. We have given thoughtful consideration to the testimony of ocular
witness including the informant-cum-sole surviving injured.
17. It is crystal clear that old enmity was going on between the parties as
admitted in the depositions of the respective witnesses. Thus, the
informant and his brother Sanat Chakraborty (deceased) went to the
house of the appellant complaining about his she-goat. There is no doubt
that the present appellant on the spur of moment under heat of passion
and on a sudden dispute and scuffle assaulted both the deceased and the
informant inflicting stab wound which also finds corroboration from the
post mortem report of the deceased and admittedly the injured informant
was also treated in BGH Hospital for 8-10 days for his injuries. There is
no material contradiction or infirmity in the evidence of ocular witnesses
including the informant to create doubt about the genesis, manner and
place of occurrence. The father of the present appellant was added as co-
accused during investigation against whom there was simple allegation of
assaulting by lathi to the father of the informant which could not be
substantiated by cogent evidence, hence, he was acquitted. The learned
counsel for the appellant has pointed out about some lacuna and
irregularities in the investigation of the case and non-availability of blood
stained knife as well as FSL report to conclusively prove that the same
was used in commission of the alleged offence. In our view the above
circumstances are corroborative in nature, so far substantive evidence of
witnesses is concerned, it is conclusively proved that it is none else but
the appellant who has caused stabbed injury to the informant and his
brother who died in course of taking to the hospital. It is trite that any
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
lacuna or irregularities in the investigation appearing in the prosecution
case can't give any premium to the accused, unless such type of
irregularities appear to be material and sufficient to discard the
prosecution case.
18. In the instant case, we find that the occurrence took place in a sudden
manner without pre-meditation and any intention to kill the deceased,
therefore, case falls under exception 4 appended to section 300 of the
I.P.C. and the offence committed by the appellant comes under culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, conviction of the appellant
for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is altered and modified for
the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. The conviction of the
appellant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. for causing stab injury to the
informant which was also likely to cause death, therefore, it is maintained.
19. So far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is quite obvious that
the appellant has been sentenced for the offence under Section 307 of the
I.P.C. for R.I. of 10 years and for the offence under Section 304 Part-II,
the maximum sentence prescribed is R.I. of 10 years.
20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has
already undergone imprisonment of 06 years, 06 months and 28 days
during trial and post-conviction and the occurrence is of year 1998, now
more than two decades has been lapsed and both the parties have restored
in their normal life, therefore, we are of the considered view that the
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of
justice in this case.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
2026:JHHC:10911-DB
21. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this appeal is
dismissed on merits with modification in judgment of conviction and
sentence as stated above. The conviction of the appellant for the offence
under Section 302 is altered and modified to Section 304 Part-II of the
I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced for imprisonment already undergone
by him during trial of the case, i.e., 06 years 06 months and 28 days.
22. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail
bond and sureties are also discharged.
23. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
24. Let the copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent
back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Date 16/04/2026
Rahul/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 17/04/2026
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002
