KAISHAV MOHALI ALIAS KESHO MOHLI vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 119 of 2022
--------
1. Kaishav Mohali @ Kesho Mohli, aged about 37 years, Son of Late
Bhuja Mohli,
2. Radhe Mohali @ Radhe Mohli, aged about 69 years, Son of Late
Tulo Mohali @ Late Dhulo Mohli,
3. Kari @ Rani Devi, aged about 27 years, Wife of Shri Neman Mohli,
4. Sukumari Devi, aged about 32 years, Wife of Binod Mohli,
All resident of village-Kosogondodighi, P.O.-Chatro, P.S.-Deori,
Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand) ... ... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent(s)
-----
CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Kumar Nitish, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
--------
J U D G M E N T
rd
03 November, 2026
By Court:-
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The appellants in this appeal have challenged the judgment by
which they have been convicted for committing the offence under
th
Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the I.P.C. vide judgment dated 06
December, 2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Giridih
and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs.
10,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and R.I. for six
months with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 323/34 of
th
the IPC, with default stipulations, vide order of sentence dated 08
December, 2021. Both the sentences were directed to run, concurrently.
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the
prosecution has stated that the occurrence has occurred, due to land
dispute but none of the witnesses has come forward giving the details of
the land, which is the subject matter of this case. He further submits that
immediately prior to the occurrence, there is nothing to suggest that there
was any dispute between the parties, so allegation against these
appellants for committing the murder of the deceased cannot be
believed. He also argues that against these two appellants i.e. Kari @
Rani Devi (appellant No. 3) and Sukumari Devi (appellant No. 4), there
is no evidence to connect them with the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC. He submits that P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 cannot be said
to be an eye witness and the other witnesses are related to each other.
Thus, this appeal needs to be allowed setting aside the impugned
judgment of conviction.
4. Learned Spl.P.P. opposed and submits that the witnesses have
supported the prosecution case and there are injured witnesses also. The
injured witnesses were examined by the Doctor and injuries were found
which suggest that they were present at the place of occurrence and their
testimony cannot be easily overlooked. He also submits that the Dr. who
has treated the injured witness also found injuries. Lastly, he submits that
the death is homicidal and Rani Devi and Sukumari Devi have also
participated in the offence and thus, they have been convicted.
5. The prosecution case in brief as per the Fardbeyan of P.W.-5
(Informant-Taleshwar Mohli) is that the informant was taking dinner and
at that time, he heard commotion, he came out and found that the
2
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
accused persons armed with deadly weapons assaulting the deceased
(Gopi Mohali). He stated that the assault was due to land dispute
between Gopi Mohali (deceased) and Radhe Mohali (appellant-2). It has
stated that he tried to pacify the matter, when, Sukumari Devi (appellant
No. 4) and Rani Devi (appellant No. 3) armed with Lathi and Danda
came there and also started assaulting the deceased. The accused Radhe
Mohali gave blow on the head of deceased by means of Axe and Kesho
Mohali gave blow on Gopi Mohli by a Katari (Sharp Cutting Weapon).
Binod Mohali also assaulted the deceased on his chest by means of an
Axe. On raising hue and cry, Nakul Mahto came out from the house and
tried to pacify but he was also assaulted.
6. On the basis of aforesaid statement of the Informant (P.W.-5),
F.I.R. was registered and after completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet.
7. The prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses in order to
substantiate the aforesaid charges:-
P.W.-1 Mahendra Mohli
P.W.-2 Bharat Mohli
P.W.-3 Nakul Mohli
P.W.-4 Budhni Devi
P.W.-5 Taleshwar Mohli
P.W.-6 Dr. P.N. Jha
P.W.-7 Simon Soy
P.W.-8 Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary
P.W.-9 Pancration Xaxa
8. Apart from above oral testimony, the prosecution ahs also
adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext.-1 to 1/1 Signatures of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 on seizure list.
Ext.-2 Post Mortem Report of deceased
Ext.-3 Fardbeyan including registration and endorsement
3
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
Ext.-4 Seizure list
Ext.-5 Carbon Copy of inquest report of the deceased
Ext.-6 and 7 Requistion for Medical Treatment of P.W.-3 & 5
Ext.-8 and 8/1 Injury Report of P.W.-5 and P.W.-3
Ext.-9 Forwarding Letter for production of seized materials
Ext.-10 and 10/1 S.F.S.L. Nos. 354/2015 dated 17.08.2015 and
21.08.2015
9. The prosecution has also examined following Material Exhibits:-
M. Ext.-I Tangi
M. Ext.-II Bamboo Sticks
M. Ext.-III Blood Stained Soil
10. Now, b
efore imparting our verdict, it is pertinent to discuss the
evidence available on record for proper adjudication.
10.1 P.W.-1 Mahendra Mohli is a witness to seizure list of blood-
stained Axe, Sticks and the blood-stained soil. He has stated that blood
stained soil and axe was recovered near the house of Radhe Mohli. This
witness is son of the deceased. He has stated that the occurrence took
place in the night at about 8:00-8:30 pm when he was in his house and
on hearing Hulla, he immediately rushed there and saw the incidence. He
stated that Kesho Mohli and Radhe Mohli assaulted the deceased and
Rani Devi and Sukumari Devi also assaulted with Sticks. He stated that
all were armed with weapons. He further stated that Nakul Mohli and
Taleshwar Mohli came to save his father but they were also assaulted.
He stated that because of assault, his father died.
In his cross-examination, he stated that there is no report of the
fact that there were dispute between the parties. He admitted that the
injured were not taken to the Hospital and they were waiting for the
police. He admitted that there was dispute between the families.
4
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
10.2 P.W.-3 Nakul Mohli is also an injured witness. He stated that he
heard the commotion and he came out and tried to intervene when he
was also assaulted by the appellants.
10.3 P.W.-5 Taleshwar Mohli is also an injured witness. He stated that
he also tried to intervene but he was also assaulted.
P.W.-1 has stated the name of these two witness i.e. P.W.-3 and
P.W.-5 that these two witnesses came to intervene and they were also
assaulted.
10.4 P.W.-8 Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary is the Doctor who
examined Nakul Mohli and Taleshwar Mohli. He stated that injury of the
Taleshwar was on his chest but the same was simple in nature caused by
hard-blunt substance.
Be it noted here that Taleshwar Mohli, when he was examined as
P.W.-5, he also showed his injuries in the Court which was on his chest
though he stated that he was assaulted by Tangi but the nature of injury
was simple caused by hard blunt substance.
In this context, we would like to note that every assault by a Tangi
did not result in a sharp cut injury; it depends on the sharpness of the
blade of the Axe.
The Dr. also examined Nakul Mohli (P.W.-3) and found the injuries on
his forehead, right eye brow and mid of forearm left side which was
caused by hard blunt substance. Both injury reports were marked as Ext.-
8 and 8/1.
10.5 P.W.-3 Nakul Mohli in his statement stated that he was assaulted
on his head and hand. The Doctor also examined this witness and found
5
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
his injury over forehead, eye brow and forearm. Thus, the injuries also
match.
He also does not specifically state that who was armed with
whatever though he states that deceased was assaulted on the head by
Tangi but who has assaulted is not mentioned.This clearly proves that
these two persons (P.W.-3 and P.W.-5) were present at the place of
occurrence.
10.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Singh v. State
of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421 has held that injured witnesses must be
given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot
be doubted. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-
36. The evidence of the stamped witness must be
given due weightage as his presence on the place
of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement
is generally considered to be very reliable and it
is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant
in order to falsely implicate someone else. The
testimony of an injured witness has its own
relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained
injuries at the time and place of occurrence and
this lends support to his testimony that he was
present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the
testimony of an injured witness is accorded a
special status in law. Such a witness comes with a
built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of
the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual
assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate
someone. “Convincing evidence is required to
discredit an injured witness.” Thus, the evidence
of an injured witness should be relied upon
unless there are grounds for the rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions
and discrepancies therein. (Vide Abdul Sayeed v.
State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 1262] ;Kailas v. State of Maharashtra
[(2011) 1 SCC 793 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 401]
6
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
;Durbal v. State of U.P. [(2011) 2 SCC 676 :
(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 877] and State of U.P. v.
Naresh [(2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)
216]”
10.7 Similarly, in the case of State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10
SCC 414, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-
“9. The evidence of injured witnesses has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons
exist, their statements are not to be discarded
lightly. Merely because there was no mention of a
knife in the first information report, that does not
wash away the effect of the evidence tendered by
the injured witnesses PWs 4 and 7. Minor
discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of an
otherwise acceptable evidence. The
circumstances highlighted by the High Court to
attach vulnerability to the evidence of the injured
witnesses are clearly inconsequential. It is fairly
conceded by the learned counsel for the accused
that though mere non-mention of the assailants'
names in the requisition memo of injury is not
sufficient to discard the prosecution version in
entirety, according to him it is a doubtful
circumstance and forms a vital link to determine
whether the prosecution version is credible. It is
a settled position in law that omission to mention
the name of the assailants in the requisition
memo perforce does not render the prosecution
version brittle.”
10.8 It is the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted by all the
appellants. There is specific allegation against the Kesho Mohli
(appellant No. 1) and Radhe Mohli (appellant No.2) who have assaulted
the deceased with sharp cut weapon i.e. Axe and Tangi. This witness i.e.
P.W.-3 in his evidence has stated that Gopi Mohli (deceased) was
assaulted on the head by an Axe as a result of which he died. P.W.-5
stated that Radhe Mohli with the sharp end of the Axe assaulted the
7
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
deceased on his head which struck on the back of his head, thereafter,
Binod also assaulted by Tangi. P.W.-1 stated that there was a dispute
going on between the parties and when he reached at the place of
occurrence, he saw Radhe Mohli (appellant No. 2), Kesho Mohli
(appellant No. 1), Binod Mohli, Neman Mohli, Gendo Mohli, Kari Devi
@ Rani Devi (appellant-3) and Sukumari Devi (appellant-4) were
present and they were assaulting his father (deceased). He stated that
Nakul and Taleshwar also came to save the deceased but they were also
assaulted. He stated that Taleshwar also sustained injury on his chest (the
fact of injury of Taleshwar has been corroborated by Taleshwar and the
Doctor also). He stated that his father was assaulted on his head which
led profusely, thereafter, he died. He is also a witness to seizure of the
Axe and blood-stained earth, etc. This witness though stated that
deceased was assaulted by all but has not stated who assaulted the
deceased by which he died. His statement is general that all were armed
with Lathi, Danda, Axe, Katari and Tangi.
10.9 P.W.-2 Bharat Mohli is not an eye witness but is a hearsay
witness who reached at the place of occurrence after hearing commotion.
He saw the dead body and he stated that he found injury on the head and
forehead of the deceased. He stated that Nakul Mohli (P.W.-3) and
Taleshwar Mohli (P.W.-5) have narrated him about the incidence. He
stated that the deceased was assaulted by Radhe Mohli (appellant No. 2),
Kesho Mohli (appellant No. 1), Binod Mohli, Neman Mohli, Gendo
Mohli, Kari Devi(appellant no. 3) and Sukumari Devi (appellant No. 4).
He stated that there was land dispute between him and these appellants.
8
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
He is also seizure list witness of the blood-stained soil and blood stained
Axe.
10.10 P.W.-4 Budhni Devi is the wife of the deceased and also an
eye witness who stated that Kesho Mohli has assaulted the deceased with
Tangi and Binod Mohli also with Tangi and so did Radhe Mohli. He
stated that other ladies assaulted with sticks. She has stated that she has
seen the occurrence. She also stated that P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 came to save
but they were also assaulted and Taleshwar Mohli was assaulted on his
chest. She caught hold of her husband but husband died.
10.11 P.W.-7 Simon Soy is the Investigating Officer who stated
that the F.I.R. is at the instance of Taleshwar Mohli (P.W.-5) and
Fardbeyan was scribed by Sunit Kumar, S.I., who is the officer-in-charge
and the same was exhibited as Ext.-3. He identifies the seizure list and
also his writing marked as Ext-4. The inquest report was exhibited as
Ext.-5. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. According to them,
they have supported the prosecution case. He inspected the place of
occurrence which is Radhe Mohli house. He described the place of
occurrence and gives the boundary of the area. He states that the seizure
list witnesses also supported the prosecution case.
10.12 P.W.-9 Pancration Xaxa is a formal witness who produced
material exhibits.
10.13 P.W.-6 Dr. P.N. Jha is the Doctor who had conducted the
post-mortem. He found three incised wound on the body of the deceased
which is over the left parietal area of skull and deep over mid occipital
area and deep over right occipital parietal area. He stated that the cause
9
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
of death is shock and hemorrhage due to head injury which is caused by
sharp edged weapon. The post-mortem report has been exhibited as Ext.-
2.
In cross-examination, he stated that all the injuries might have
been sustained while standing position. From the medical evidence of
post-mortem report it is clear that the death is homicide.
11. Though, all the witnesses except P.W.-4 (wife of the deceased)
gave a general statement that all the appellants and other accused
assaulted deceased with Axe, Katari, Etc. but they have not stated
specifically as to who has assaulted by which weapon. This specific
allegation comes from the evidence of P.W.-4 who is wife of the
deceased and who has also seen the occurrence. He has taken the name
of Radhe Mohli (appellant No. 2) and Kesho Mohli (appellant No. 1)
assaulting the deceased with the sharp cutting weapon and the ocular
evidence matches with the medical evidence as sharp cutting injuries
were found on the head which is part of the body. P.W.-1 although has
stated that all of them were armed with sharp cutting weapons and sticks.
12. After analyzing the evidence, we further find that so far as
appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned that they were armed with sticks
and the statement of P.W.-6 suggests that there are three injuries on the
body of the deceased which was incised wound and caused by sharp
edged weapon. This suggests that there was no assault upon the deceased
by these ladies who were holding Lathi and Danda. Thus, these two
appellants could not have been convicted for the offence under Section
302 of the IPC and their conviction under Section 302 is bad and the
10
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
same is set aside.
13. So far as conviction under section 34 is concerned, we find no
evidence and there is nothing on record to suggest that in furtherance of
common intention, these two lady appellants had participated in the
occurrence as we have already held that there is nothing on record except
having a Lathi and Danda in their hand.
14. So far as the other two appellants i.e. Kesho Mohli and Radhre
Mohli are concerned, there is consistence evidence that they were all
armed with sharp cutting weapons and they have assaulted the deceased.
Though, there is no specific statement against the appellants that how
each of the them have inflicted the blow and what weapon but the fact
that they were armed with sharp cutting weapons has been proved by the
witnesses and they have assaulted, has also been proved. P.W.-3 and
P.W.-5 are injured witnesses and their presence are not disputed. P.W.-1
also stated about the presence of P.W.-3 and P.W.-5. P.W.-2 though is not
an eye witness, saw the injury on the forehead of the deceased, which is
corroborated by the statement of Doctor (P.W.-8). Thus the involvement
of these two appellants i.e. Radhe Mohli (appellant No. 2) and Kesho
Mohli (appellant No. 1) in commission of the offence has been proved
by the prosecution. We further find that, by no stretch of imagination,
this case comes within the purview of section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the
IPC as the allegation stands in grievous in nature and there is direct
evidence against appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2.
15. Thus the conviction for the offence punishable under section 302
of the IPC for committing the murder of the deceased has been proved
11
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
by the prosecution against these two appellants i.e. Kesho Mohli
(appellant No. 1) and Radhe Mohli (appellant No. 2).
16. So far as section 323 is concerned against these two appellants i.e.
Kesho Mohli (appellant No. 1) and Radhe Mohli (appellant No. 2), we
find that the injuries upon the witnesses P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 are simple in
nature and thus, the conviction of these two persons under Section 323
of the I.P.C. also needs no interference.
17. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed so far as appellant
No. 1 and 2 is concerned and the same is allowed with respect to
appellant No. 3 and 4.
18. Accordingly, t he appellant No. 3 and appellant No. 4 are on
bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bond.
Sureties are also discharged and the suspension of sentence granted
to the appellant namely Kaishav Mohali @ Kesho Mohli vide order
dated 27.09.2022 , during pendency of this appeal, is hereby
cancelled, his sureties are also discharged and he is directed to
surrender before the learned Trial Court within two months from
the date of this Judgment to undergo the remaining period of
sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court, failing which,
the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and
detention of the aforesaid appellant for sustaining the remaining
period of sentence awarded to him.
19. Let a copy of this judgment be furnished forthwith to the
appellant No. 2 namely Rahde Mohli through learned
A.P.P/Spl.P.P.
12
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022
2026:JHHC:32238-DB
20. In result, this appeal is party allowed.
21. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
22. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to concerned trial court for
information and needful.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
03.11.2026
Basant/
Uploaded on 06/11/2026
13
Cr. A. (DB) No. 119 of 2022