Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1127 (JHR)

Mukund Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-17

P.P.BHATT, VIRENDER SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. 1. Appellant, Mukund Mahto, (hereinafter to be referred to as accused) has preferred the instant appeal through Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. He is stated to be in custody for the last 15 years 7 months and few odd days, therefore, preference has been given to the instant appeal over and above other appeals despite the fact that it was filed only in the year 2014, that too with huge delay of 3629 days and condoned by the Court, vide order dated 9th March, 2015. 2. One Guhiram Mahto, son of Jawahar Lal Mahto (first informant) is the deceased in this case. The occurrence is of 24th January, 2000 at about 12.00 noon in Village Singhpur, Tola Gaureya Kudar, falling within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kashmar (District Bokaro). The information report (fardbeyan) with regard to the present occurrence was lodged on the same day i.e. on 24.1.2000 about 2.00 P.M. within two hours of the occurrence. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station (P.S. Kashmar) is 14 kms. On the basis of the said report, Kashmar P.S. Case No. 3 of 2000 under section 302 I.P.C. came to be registered. PW-Jawahar Lal Mahto alleges that on 24.1.2000, his son Guhiram Mahto (deceased) was doing the wall writing and administering Pulse Polio drops for the 4th stage of Pulse Polio Campaign at the instance of PW-Mahendra Prasad Singh, who is also known in the village as Dresser. At about 12 O'Clock, when the deceased was doing the wall writing on the wall of Jogi Dome and Bhagtu Dome, the accused, who was armed with a Farsa (sharp edged weapon) and in village, commonly known as Tabla, assaulted the deceased on his neck, back and waist, resultantly he died at the spot. He further stated that Kishun Ram Mahto, Santosh Kalindi, Lal Mohan Mahto, Beni Mahto had seen the occurrence and also made an attempt to catch hold of the accused with the help of other villagers, who had also assembled there immediately after the occurrence, but the accused managed to escape after throwing the blood-stained Farsa. He had seen the accused fleeing away. He had seen the accused fleeing away. The motive as alleged in the first information report is of some old enmity with the accused, whereas PW-Purni Devi, mother of the deceased, when stepped into the witness box, stated that the accused was having an impression that the deceased was carrying on with his wife. 3. PW-Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has proved the postmortem report as Ext.4/I and the inquest report of the deceased was proved by PW-Jagdish Chandra Mahto as Ext.5. Investigating Officer, however, has not stepped into witness box. 4. As per postmortem report, the deceased has received the following injuries:- (i) A cut 5½" x 1" x cravial cavity deep with cut fracture of left temporal and mastoid and part of frontal bone. The external ear (pinna) also transversely divided above the auditory meatus. (ii) Cut vertical 5" x 1½" x thoracic cavity deep. Right side of the back about one inch away from the mid line with fractures 5th 6th 7th & 8th ribs. (iii) Abrasion 5" x ¼" left side of the waist." Injury No. (i) in fact, has proved to be fatal, as one finds from medical evidence. Doctor has otherwise opined that injury Nos. (i) and (ii) could be caused by Farsa. 5. In order to prove the charge, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses, but primarily the case of prosecution is resting upon the statements of PW-Beni Mahto whose name figures in the first information report also. The other witnesses, in fact, are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence although when they stepped into the witness box, they gave an impression as if they had seen the occurrence themselves but from their cross-examination, one can comfortably make out that they had reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence was over and the accused had fled away from the spot. 6. PW-Beni Mahto had unfolded the prosecution evidence in toto. When he stepped into the witness box, he categorically stated that at about 12 O' Clock, he was in Dometoli and at that time, the deceased was writing on the wall. He was campaigning for Pulse Polio Drops by writing something on the wall. 6. PW-Beni Mahto had unfolded the prosecution evidence in toto. When he stepped into the witness box, he categorically stated that at about 12 O' Clock, he was in Dometoli and at that time, the deceased was writing on the wall. He was campaigning for Pulse Polio Drops by writing something on the wall. At that time, the accused, who was armed with Farsa, reached there and gave one injury on the neck of the deceased and thereafter assaulted twice on the chest of the deceased, consequently he fell down and died at the spot itself. He further stated that the accused fled away from the spot after assaulting the deceased and in that process, he and other 4-5 persons made an attempt to catch hold of him but could not nab him. He identified the accused in the court. We have minutely seen the cross-examination conducted upon this witness for our satisfaction so as to appreciate as to whether he had actually seen the occurrence or has been imported subsequently as an eye-witness to the occurrence. 7. Learned counsel for the accused, in his attempt to dislodge the evidence of PW-Beni Mahto, stated that he had stated in his evidence that on account of assault, the neck of the deceased had cut, whereas the medical evidence is otherwise. He then submitted that if one peruses para 11 of the cross-examination, it appears as if he had reached at the spot after other 4-5 persons had assembled there. Learned counsel submitted that other two witnesses whose name are mentioned in the first information report namely Mahendra Prasad Singh and Kishun Mahto, when stepped into the witness box, did not project themselves as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, whereas PW-Beni Mahto remained throughout with PW-Mahendra Prasad Singh (Dresser) as is clear from the statements of PW-Purni Devi, mother of the deceased and the fact that when PW-Mahendra Prasad Singh turns out to be the witness of hear-say evidence, PW-Beni Mahto, who was with Mahendra Prasad Singh, could not possibly see the occurrence, therefore, it appears that in fact, no one had seen the occurrence and names of all these witnesses were inserted subsequently by PW-Jawahar Lal Mahto in his fardbeyan. According to learned counsel, the case of the prosecution, thus, turns out to be doubtful, so far as eye-version account is concerned. 8. According to learned counsel, the case of the prosecution, thus, turns out to be doubtful, so far as eye-version account is concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the accused further submitted that blood stained Farsa (weapon of the offence), which was left by the accused at the spot, has not been produced during trial. This also damages the case of the prosecution. He, thus, prays for acquittal of the accused for the charge of section 302 I.P.C. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that although all the witnesses, except PW-Beni Mahto, cannot be said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, but evidence of PW-Beni Mahto does not call for its rejection. He submitted that no doubt, certain discrepancies had crept in his statements but all those are ignorable, once his presence at the spot is fixed. He submitted that even if the weapon of offence has not been produced during trial, that would not be a ground to demolish the case of the prosecution in its totality as injuries noticed on the person of the deceased gets corroboration from the medical evidence and all those injuries are possible by sharp edged weapon and the weapon of offence in the present case is Farsa (sharp edged weapon). He, thus, prays for upholding the conviction/sentence of the accused as already recorded. 10. After rescanning the prosecution evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. The detailed reasons for arriving at the said conclusion are as follows. 11. PW-Jawahar Lal Mahto, father of the deceased, lodged the report with the police within two hours of the occurrence, as one finds from the first information report, and the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station, where the first information report was lodged, is 14 kms, thus, there is hardly any delay in lodging the report with the police. Had there been any delay, one could make out that the complainant had consumed sometime for introducing a colourful version. 12. What convinces us more in this case is that PW-Jawahar Lal Mahto, father of the deceased, does not project himself as eye-witness to the occurrence even in the first information report. Had there been any delay, one could make out that the complainant had consumed sometime for introducing a colourful version. 12. What convinces us more in this case is that PW-Jawahar Lal Mahto, father of the deceased, does not project himself as eye-witness to the occurrence even in the first information report. He does not name even his wife PW-Purni Devi as an eye-witness to the occurrence, may be PW-Purni Devi, when stepped into the witness box, gave an impression as if she had seen the occurrence, which fact we had discarded on account of cross-examination conducted on her. We are conscious of the fact that except Beni Mahto, none else has projected himself as an eye-witness to the occurrence as all other PWs. who have been produced by the prosecution, are the witnesses of hear-say evidence including PW-Mahendra Prasad Singh (Dresser) in whose company the deceased was till noon (lunch time), as stated by PW-Purni Devi, mother of the deceased, but, we do not find any inherent weakness in his evidence. We are conscious of the fact that PW-Kishun Mahto is reflected in the first information report but when he stepped into the witness box, he projected himself as a witness of hear-say evidence, still that fact would not cause any damage to the evidence of PW-Beni Mahto. We have tested his evidence on the settled principle that conviction can be based on the statement of solitary eye-witness, provided it is trustworthy. We have adopted a very cautious approach in this regard so as to ensure that the evidence of this witness is free from any shadow of doubt after it passes through the test of appreciation of fine toothed comb for the purpose of proving the charge to the hilt, otherwise it has to face rejection in its totality. We, after applying that yardstick of appreciation, are of the considered view that he is the true witness to the occurrence. 13. Attempt made by learned counsel for the accused to cause dent to his evidence stating that his statement does not get corroboration from the medical evidence is not acceptable to us. If one looks at the postmortem report, injury No. (i) which virtually proved to be fatal, is on temporal bone and mastoid bone also. It is near the neck covering long area more than 5 inch. If one looks at the postmortem report, injury No. (i) which virtually proved to be fatal, is on temporal bone and mastoid bone also. It is near the neck covering long area more than 5 inch. PW-Beni Mahto, when stepped into the witness box, stated that the injury landed on the neck had cut the neck. The evidence is absolutely natural coming out from the mouth of a rustic villager. Other two injuries, as stated by this witness, are also noticed by the Doctor, resulting into fracture of certain ribs. 14. The other infirmity pointed out in the evidence of PW-Beni Mahto by learned counsel for the accused that he, in his cross-examination, has stated that when he reached the spot, 4-5 persons had already assembled there, therefore, he possibly could not see the occurrence is also not acceptable to us. The case of the prosecution is that immediately when the accused assaulted the deceased, certain persons had assembled there at the scene. PW-Beni Mahto was one of them. In this backdrop, his evidence would not become untrustworthy to doubt him as an untrue witness to the occurrence. 15. Considering the case of the prosecution from all angles, we are of the firm view that PW-Beni Mahto, the solitary eye witness to the occurrence, has been able to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, he being the most natural and trustworthy. Conviction of the accused as already recorded by the trial court for the charge of section 302 IPC thus, deserves to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 16. The net result is that the appeal on hand stands dismissed. 17. Registry is directed to inform the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee of the outcome of the instant appeal so that the accused, who is languishing in jail, is also made aware of the outcome of this judgment.