Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.379 OF 2010
Madan Mohan Mahto ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand
Thr. Its Chief Secretary
Secretariat, Jharkhand
at Ranchi ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.332 OF 2011
Jagmohan Mahto ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Thr. Its Chief Secretary
Secretariat, Jharkhand
at Ranchi ….Respondent(s)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.02.07
16:11:09 IST
Reason:
1
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are filed against the final
judgment and order dated 03.02.2009 of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal
No.270 of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellants herein and
affirmed the order dated 05.07.2001 of the Trial
Court in Sessions Trial No.310 of 1993.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved
in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts
hereinbelow.
3. Four persons, namely, Madan Mohan Mahto,
Jagmohan Mahto, Charka Mahto and Bihari Mahto
were prosecuted and eventually convicted for
commission of offence of murder of one Jitu Mahto
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
2
“IPC”) by the Sessions Judge and were accordingly
awarded life sentence.
4. All the four accused felt aggrieved and filed an
appeal before the High Court. By impugned order,
the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the
order of the Trial Court, which has given rise to
filing of the four criminal appeals by four accused in
this Court.
5. During pendency of the appeals, two accused,
namely, Charka Mahto and Bihari Mahto died,
therefore, two appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal
Nos. 122/2010 and 1298/2010 were dismissed as
having abated by order dated 01.02.2019.
6. We are now concerned with the remaining two
criminal appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal No.
379/2010 filed by accused Madan Mohan Mahto
and Criminal Appeal No. 332/2011 filed by accused
Jagmohan Mahto.
3
7. In short, the case of the prosecution against
the appellants is as under:
8. On 19.11.1985 at around 12 noon, Kuila
Mahto (informant), Jitu Mahto (deceased), Butru
Mahto and Jagran Mahto s/o Butru Mahto were
harvesting paddy in their field. At that time, four
abovenamed accused armed with Tangi, Pharsa
and Gun arrived at in the field. Accused, Madan
Mohan Mahto, was having a gun and he fired three
gunshots, which resulted in three persons fleeing
away from their field. However, Jitu Mahto could
not flee and was surrounded by the said four
accused. Accused, Jagmohan Mahto, was having a
Tangi and he, with the use of Tangi, cut Jitu
Mahto’s right palm and accusedBihari Mahto and
Chrka Mahto hit Jitu Mahto with the stone on his
head resulting the death Jitu Mahto on the spot.
9. The FIR was lodged on 20.11.1985 in the early
morning (6 a.m.) by Kuila Mahto (informant)
4
narrating therein the incident, as mentioned above,
naming four accused including the manner in which
they committed the murder of Jitu Mahto. This led
to investigation by the police sleuths, who recorded
the statements of the witnesses, obtained the post
mortem report, collected the evidence and
apprehended the accused persons.
10. The charge sheet was filed and the case was
committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The
prosecution examined as many as six witnesses.
The statements of accused persons were recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The accused denied their
involvement in the alleged crime.
11. By judgment/order dated 05.07.2001, the
Sessions Judge convicted all the four accused
persons for commission of the offence of murder of
Jitu Mahto and sentenced them for life
imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section
5
34 IPC. In an appeal filed by all the four accused,
the High Court, by impugned order, dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence
of all the four accused.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in these appeals.
14. At the outset, we consider it apposite to state
that when the two Courts below in their respective
jurisdiction have appreciated the entire ocular
evidence, then this Court would be very slow in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution to appreciate the evidence
afresh unless the appellants are able to point out
that the concurrent finding of two Courts below is
wholly perverse or is recorded without any evidence
or is recorded by misreading or ignoring the
material evidence.
6
15. We consider it apposite to recall the apt words
of Justice Fazal Alia learned Judge while speaking
for the Bench in the case of
Lachman Singh vs.
State (AIR 1952 SC 167 at page 169) when his
Lordship observed “It is sufficient to say that it is not
the function of this Court to reassess the evidence
and an argument on a point of fact which did not
prevail with the Courts below cannot avail by the
appellants in this Court.”
16. Despite this, we felt that since the leave has
been granted to the appellants to file these appeals,
it is just and proper to peruse the evidence and,
particularly, the evidence of Jagran Mahto (PW1)
and Kuila Mahto (PW2).
17. These two witnesses were the eyewitnesses to
the incident. Kuila Mahto (PW2) was the informant,
who lodged the First Information Report. The
accused persons and these two witnesses knew
each other very well. Both these witnesses, in
7
categorical terms, maintained their version in their
respective statements that the appellantMadan
Mohan Mahto fired the gunshot and the appellant
Jagmohan Mahto hit with a Tangi on the right palm
of Jitu Mahto and other two accused, namely,
Bihari Mahto and Charka Mahto, who are now
dead, hit on head of Jitu Mahto with stone. There
was neither any contradiction nor any inconsistency
in their statements on material version such as on
the question of identity of the accused, who hit,
where the assault was made and who fired. This
version was also stated in the FIR naming all the
four accused.
18. The doctor (PW3), who performed the post
mortem, confirmed that the weapon used by the
accused persons could cause the injuries and also
confirmed the areas where the injuries were caused.
It corroborates with the statements of eyewitnesses
(PWs 1 & 2).
8
19. The incident occurred in a broad daylight in
the afternoon. It was an admitted fact that there
was a rivalry going on between them on account of a
land dispute. The two Courts below believed both
these witnesses (PWs 1 & 2) and, in our opinion,
rightly.
20. We are unable to notice any kind of infirmity,
illegality or perversity in the approach of the two
Courts below while holding that the prosecution
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against all
the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. A
case of common intention under Section 34 IPC
stood fully made out against all the accused
persons because it was proved that all the accused
came together armed with lethal weapons in their
hands with an intention to attack the persons
working in the field. Three persons, named above,
including PWs 1 and 2 could manage to flee from
the field but Jitu Mahto was not able to flee and
9
was caught hold by the accused persons. He was,
therefore, brutally assaulted by all the accused
persons with the aid of Tangi and stone on his hand
and head due to which he died on the spot.
21. Though learned counsel for the appellants in
both the appeals made attempt to argue that there
were contradictions in the evidence of these
witnesses but, as mentioned above, we are unable
to notice any material contradiction in their
evidence.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
are found to be devoid of any merit. The appeals
thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.
.………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
February 07, 2019
10