KRISHNA PRASAD MAHATO ALIAS KRISHNA PADO MAHATO ALIAS MADI RAM MAHATO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:31237-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 782 of 2022
--------
Krishna Prasad Mahato @ Krishna Pado Mahato @ Madi Ram
Mahato, S/o Pritam Mahato, aged about 59 years, resident of Village-
Hatiyadih, P.O. & P.S.-Boram, District-East Singhbhum
... ... Appellant

Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent
-----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
th
26 October, 2026

By Court: - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State.
2. The appellant in this appeal has challenged the judgment by
which he has been convicted for committing the offence under Section
th
302 of the I.P.C. vide judgment dated 08 September, 2020 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur and has been
th
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life vide order dated 09 September,
2020.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt. He submits that though the P.W.-1 tries
to be an eye-witness, but careful reading of the evidence of P.W.-1
will lead to the only conclusion that she is not an eye-witness. He
further submits that the P.W.-2, who is the informant and the wife of
the deceased, is also not an eye-witness, as P.W.-1 has not taken the

2026:JHHC:31237-DB

name of P.W.-2 to be present at the time of occurrence and P.W.-1 has
stated that only she was present. As per him, P.W.s-3, 4 and 5 are
hearsay witness who have not seen the occurrence. Even P.W.-8, who
is the son of the deceased and was present at the house has not stated
that it is present appellant, who has committed the murder. P.W.-7
himself admits that he reached the place of occurrence after ten
minutes, thus, he is also not an eye-witness. The counsel submits that
the I.O. has failed to prove the place of occurrence and has not
prepared any sketch map of the place. It is further submitted that the
dead body was found in front of the house of one Agnu Mahato and
not in front of the house of this appellant, which suggests the falsity of
the case. He lastly relies upon the statement under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has stated that there was no land dispute
between the parties. As per the counsel, this falsifies the very genesis
of the occurrence which the prosecution relies to be a land dispute.
4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes and
submits that P.W.1 and P.W.-2 are eye-witnesses, they have seen the
occurrence. They also submit apart from P.W.1 and P.W.-2, there is
another eye-witness, who is P.W.-6, he was sitting in his house and
immediately within a second, he reached at the place of occurrence
and has seen one blow given by the appellant to the deceased. It is a
contention of the State that non-recovery of the murder weapon is
irrelevant in this case as the ocular evidence clearly supports the
prosecution case and the medical evidence also supports the ocular

2
Cr. A. (DB) No. 782 of 2022

2026:JHHC:31237-DB

evidence and in the manner in which the occurrence had taken place.
5. The F.I.R. in this case is at the instance of P.W.-2, who is the
wife of the deceased. She stated that in the morning when her husband
was taking the goat for grazing and this appellant came and assaulted
the deceased with an axe on his head and neck. She further states that
there was a serious dispute between the parties which resulted in this
occurrence. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet and the
trial proceeded as the appellant has pleaded not guilty.
6. Following documents were exhibited during trial:-
Ext.-1-Post-mortem report
Ext.-2- Fardbeyan
Ext.-2/1-Endorsement on fardbeyan
Ext.-3-Formal F.I.R.
Ext.-4-Inquest Report
P.W.-1 is Shibhu Bala Mahato, who stated that the occurrence
had taken place at 06:00 in the morning, when she was in the house.
The deceased was going to graze the goat when this appellant came
and assaulted with an axe on the head. She identified this appellant in
the Court. The Court observed the demeanor of the witness and
mentions that on identifying the accused this witness started weeping.
She stated that her house was close to the house of the deceased. She
also stated that the house of Kunj Bihari is just in front of her house.
She stated that she was alone when the assault had taken place. She
also admitted that she has narrated before the police that the assault
was by axe.

3
Cr. A. (DB) No. 782 of 2022

2026:JHHC:31237-DB

P.W.-2 is the informant of this case. She stated that she was
accompanying the deceased in the morning when this appellant had
assaulted the deceased with an axe. She stated that the reason of the
assault is a land dispute which was nearly ten years old. She stated
that the appellant assaulted the deceased on the back of his head and
also on the neck. In paragraph 5 she stated that the assault had taken
place 2/3 houses beyond their house. In paragraph 11 she takes the
name of P.W.1 and says that she was also present and had seen the
occurrence. She states that the appellant walked away with the axe.
7. The evidence of P.W.-2 remained intact and consistent in her
cross-examination also. There is nothing to cast a doubt that she is not
an eye-witness. She also takes the name of P.W.-1 to be present at the
place, who had seen the occurrence. The manner in which the assault
had taken place and the time and the place as submitted by both P.W.1
and P.W.-2 matches with each other’s statement. As per their
statement, the deceased was assaulted by this appellant with an axe on
the head.
8. The doctor who has conducted the post-mortem, the deceased is
P.W.-9, he stated that he found two lacerated wounds: -
(i) 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. under the left angel of mandible.
(ii) 1.5 x 1.5 x muscle deep over left temporal region.
These two injuries which the doctor found during post-mortem
matches with the ocular evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2.
On dissection the doctor found that the right parietal and the

4
Cr. A. (DB) No. 782 of 2022

2026:JHHC:31237-DB

occipital scalp contused 13 c.m. x 6 c.m. Left temporal scalp contused
3 c.m. x 4 c.m. brain contused. The doctor found sternum fractured
nd th
under surface contused. Pericardium contused. Left side 2 and 4
ribs fractured in back. Pericardial sack contains blood, heart ruptured.
Viscera congested lungs contused. Stomach contained semi-digested
food rice and pulse 200 gms. Bladder empty.
The doctor opined that the cause of death is the head and chest
injuries by hard and blunt substance.
Thus, from the evidence of the doctor, the homicidal death of
the deceased is proved and the ocular evidences of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2
matched.
9. P.W.-6 is another eye-witness. He stated that he was in his
house at the time of occurrence, which is in the morning about 6:00 –
7:00 A.M. On hearing human cry, he rushed to the place of occurrence
and saw the deceased was assaulted by this appellant with an axe and
thereafter, the appellant fled after seeing him. He stated that he and his
wife accompanied him. He stated that it hardly took any time for him
to reach the place of occurrence, though he states that hardly 1– 1.5
seconds. He stated that the soil was smeared with blood at the place of
occurrence.
In cross-examination, nothing was elicited from him to
disbelieve his testimony.
Thus, from his testimony we find that he is not only a reliable
witness, but an eye-witness also. His statement also corroborates

5
Cr. A. (DB) No. 782 of 2022

2026:JHHC:31237-DB

manner in which the assault was made and the part of the body was
subjected to multiple injuries by the appellant.
10. P.W.-3 , P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 though are not the eye-witnesses,
but were co-villagers, who narrated the story of this assault after
hearing from the other villagers.
11. P.W.-11 is the I.O., who proved the place of occurrence. He
stated that the body was found in front of the house of Agnu Mahato.
From the inquest report, I.O. also found injury on the neck and on the
back of the head. It is pertinent to mention that the house of this
appellant, deceased and Agnu Mahato are situated nearby i.e. just
more next to each other. The I.O. also exhibited the thumb
impressions of the F.I.R. which was found as Exhibit-2 and proved the
F.I.R. The formal F.I.R. was also proved by him. He admitted that he
has recorded the statement of the witnesses. The inquest report was
also exhibited by him as Exhibit-4 .
12. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that P.W.-1, P.W.-2
and P.W.-6 are reliable witnesses and are eye-witnesses and their
testimony was not demolished. Non-recovery of the murder weapon in
this case is not fatal to prosecution and the appellant could not put
forth any prejudice what has been caused to him on non-production of
the weapon.
13. In light of the evidence discussed hereinabove, we find that
there is no illegality committed by the Trial Court in convicting the
appellant as the prosecution has proved the guilt of this appellant

6
Cr. A. (DB) No. 782 of 2022

2026:JHHC:31237-DB

beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we do not find any merits
in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed .
14. Appellant is in custody. Let a copy of this judgment be
furnished forthwith to the appellant through learned A.P.P.
15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
16. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court
for information and needful.


(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)


26.10.2026
Arpit/
Uploaded on 28/10/2026


7
Cr. A. (DB) No. 782 of 2022