Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Mahto Son Of Gourango Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 December, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:38666-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 759 of 2003
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.05.2003,
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Seraikella, in
Sessions Trial No.136 of 2002]
......
1. Ashok Mahto son of Gourango Mahato, resident of village -
Bergidih.
2. Nishikant Mahato son of Madan Mahato, resident of village -
Rahorgora.
3. Bapikoyal son of Mukund Koyal, resident of village - Ichhapur
(Gwalapara).
All of police station - R.I.T., district -Seraikella (Kharswan).
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellants : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
......
C.A.V. on 18.11.2025 Pronounced on 23.12.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 1 |13
2025:JHHC:38666-DB
1. We have already heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Seraikella in S.T. No.136 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 23.02.2003 at about 09:30 p.m., informant Khudiram Mahto along with Dhaniram Mahto was present at the house of Ghasiram and when they came out towards the grill gate, they saw that Ashok, Nishikant and Bapikoyal were standing very close to the gate. Meanwhile, Ashok Mahto with intention to kill informant's brother Dhaniram fired upon him then he fell down being disbalanced. Meanwhile, all the three accused jointly fired aiming the informant which could not hit him. It is alleged that at the time of occurrence the villagers assembled for seeing the programme of Chhou dance (NÅ u`R;), also arrived hearing the hallah.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 2 |13
2025:JHHC:38666-DB
Dhaniram who was still conscious told about the occurrence to the villagers and brought to T.M.H. hospital but declared dead by doctor. The motive behind the occurrence is alleged that Nimai Mahto, brother of Ashok Mahto, had committed illicit act with niece of informant due to which there was tense relationship and this occurrence took place.
On the basis of above fardbeyan, Adityapur (R.I.T) P.S. Case No.35 of 2002 corresponding to (G.R Case No.119 of 2002) dated 24.02.2002 was registered for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Later on dated 06.03.2002, Section 27 of the Arms Act was also added against all the named accused persons.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. No.136 of 2002 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.
5. After completion of trial, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 3 |13
2025:JHHC:38666-DB
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P.W.5 (informant) and P.W.8 (Ghasiram) are the only eye witnesses of the occurrence but their testimony suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies which cannot be relied upon. The P.W.5 (informant) categorically admits inimical terms with the appellant Ashok Mahto and there was no grudge or enmity with appellant Nos.2 and 3. The P.W.5 and P.W.8 have not stated as to the source of identification of the accused persons in the dark night of the occurrence. The single firearm injury sustained by the deceased is also not corroborated by his P.M. Report. The deceased was conscious when the villagers assembled and he disclosed about the incident, is also not believable at all as none of the villagers have supported the prosecution story in the manner described by the informant. It is further submitted that the informant has stated that all the accused persons started firing aiming him but not a single pellet or empty cartridge was found near the place of occurrence. Admittedly, no other person has been injured in the said occurrence except the deceased. The learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.8 who happens to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. If they had seen the occurrence and immediately brought the deceased to T.M.H. hospital, the police outpost situated just Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 4 |13 2025:JHHC:38666-DB adjacent to the hospital might have been informed and F.I.R. had been lodged immediately but the fardbeyan of informant was recorded at his home on next day at 12:00 noon and formal F.I.R. was registered at 14:00 hours, which clearly falsifies the version contained in the F.I.R. as well as the factum of disclosure about incident by the deceased who immediately died due to sustaining firearm injury. All other witnesses examined in this case are hearsay from P.W.5 and P.W.8. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants only on the basis of suspicion and previous enmity cannot be sustained. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is fit to be set aside by allowing this appeal.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that P.W.5 and P.W.8 are very natural eye witnesses who had seen the occurrence and no materials have been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their testimony or doubt their veracity. Other witnesses of occurrence have also corroborated the prosecution story regarding the occurrence which took place at the time and place alleged by the eye witnesses. The injury sustained by the deceased also finds corroboration from his P.M. report. Therefore, the learned trial court has considered all Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 5 |13 2025:JHHC:38666-DB the relevant materials available on record and passed a well reasoned judgment recording conclusion of guilt of the appellants. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference in this appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
8. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side and also appraised the evidence of witnesses. It appears that out of 10 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.5 (informant) and P.W.8 (Ghasiram) are the eye witnesses of occurrence and star witnesses of this case. Therefore, their testimony is to be discussed in detail at first. P.W.5 Khudiram has corroborated the contents of fardbeyan lodged by him and testified that on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 23.02.2002 at about 09:30 p.m., he went to the house of Ghasiram to bring back his brother Dhaniram and while he along with his brother and Ghasiram were coming out to return to his home, they saw the accused Ashok, Nishikant, and Bapikoyal standing near a grill gate. It is further stated that Ashok Mahto pointed a pistol towards Dhaniram and fired at him causing him to stagger after being hit by the bullet. Meanwhile, all the three accused persons jointly fired aiming the informant which could not hit him. On Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 6 |13 2025:JHHC:38666-DB hearing hallah, villagers arrived, as there was a Chhau dance programme in the village. It is further stated that Dhaniram was conscious and narrated the incident to the villagers. Seeing the villagers, the accused fled away. Thereafter, Dhaniram was taken to TMH, where he was declared dead by the doctor. This witness further stated that there was prior enmity, as Ashok's brother Nimai had misbehaved with his niece.
In his cross-examination also, this witness has reiterated the same thing.
He has been cross-examined by defence at length but nothing has been elicited to discredit him as regards the aforesaid testimony deposed by him in the examination-in-chief. P.W.8 Ghasiram Mahto has also corroborated the testimony of P.W.5 and states that he along with the informant and his brother Dhaniram came out of the house after having dinner. It is further stated that Dhaniram was walking ahead and when they reached near a grill gate, they heard Ashok Mahato shout that it was Dhaniram, kill him. Ashok then fired at Dhaniram and the bullet struck him, causing him to collapse. After hearing hallah, villagers gathered and the accused fired while fleeing towards the pond and fields. It is further stated that Dhaniram was alive at that time and was taken to TMH for treatment.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 7 |13
2025:JHHC:38666-DB
This witness remained intact as regards the aforesaid testimony in the cross-examination and has also stated about twice firing upon the deceased Dhaniram.
P.W.9 Manoj Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the case. On 24.02.2002, this witness received information that in village Bergidih some occurrence of murder has taken place. He along with other police personnel went to the place of occurrence and came to know that one Dhaniram has been murdered by Ashok Mahto. He has recorded the fardbeyan of informant Khudiram Mahto which is marked as Ext.2 and endorsement was made for registration of case before Adityapur Police Station which is marked as Ext.2/1 and formal F.I.R. has been marked as Ext.3. He inspected the place of occurrence and recorded restatement of informant and other witnesses, received post-mortem report and after finding sufficient evidence against the accused persons submitted charge-sheet.
In his cross-examination, he admits that information was received at about 11-12 hours in night through telephonic message, therefore, S.D. Entry No.460 was entered. He went to place of occurrence immediately but no one was present. Therefore, in the next day morning, brother of deceased was found and his statement was recorded. There is nothing else in his Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 8 |13 2025:JHHC:38666-DB cross-examination worth mentioning. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his investigation is defective. P.W.10 Dr. Y. Nath who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Dhaniram on 14.02.2002 at 01:30 p.m. and found following injuries :-
(i) Fire arm injury wound of entrance 1 cm in diameter over middle of back of chest with collar abrasion round wound of entrance. Situated 20 cm below the shoulder line and 18 cm medial to left posterior axillary fold.
Wound of exit - 1.5 cm in diameter 12 cm above the left nipple 8 cm lateral to midpoint of sternum. Blood is flowing through the wound just below left clavicle.
The Course - Projectile entered into the chest cavity pierces diaphragm twice, liver twice and lacerated the left lung twice and made exit through wound of exit. There is blood and blood clot in the chest cavity.
Opinion : All the injuries are antemortem caused by fire arm. Death was due to hemorrhage and shock and time since death within 12-18 hours from the time of post mortem examination.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 9 |13
2025:JHHC:38666-DB
9. Apart from aforesaid witnesses, other witnesses of facts are P.W.1 Santosh Mahto, P.W.2 Dhiren Mahto, P.W.3 Deepak Mahto and P.W.4 Sarangi Pradhan, who are hearsay witnesses. P.W.6 Rammohan Mahto and P.W.7 Rabin Mahto have been tendered by the prosecution and expressed no knowledge about the occurrence.
10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is false implication due to grudge and enmity.
11. We have given anxious consideration to the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It appears that P.W.5, who happens to be informant of the case, has consistently corroborated his earlier statement during trial. The defence has conducted cross- examination of this witness at length but could not succeed to illicit any material to discredit his evidence. So far as shot of fire upon the deceased is concerned, there is specific evidence against appellant No.1. The informant has stated about presence of appellant Nos.2 and 3 and firing by them but no injury was caused to anyone. This particular statement of informant does not find corroboration from the evidence of P.W.8 who was also present along with informant at the time of occurrence. He has not stated about presence of appellant Nos.2 and 3 rather specific allegation Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 10 |13 2025:JHHC:38666-DB is only against the appellant No.1 that he fired upon the deceased due to which he became disbalanced and fell down. No other firearm sound has been heard by any of the witnesses. P.W.8 has also corroborated the above evidence of P.W.5 in toto but in his cross-examination, he stated about twice firing upon the deceased which appears to be based upon entry and exit injury marks. The P.M. Report also shows that there was entry and exit wound of single shot fire. The factum of occurrence also finds corroboration from the witnesses who immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the deceased sustaining firearm injury.
12. In view of above, we do not find any material improvement or discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.8 to disbelieve their evidence in entirety. They have categorically proved the commission of murder of deceased by appellant No.1 by shooting. It appears that the learned trial court has recorded no findings regarding applicability of provision of Section 34 of the I.P.C. to establish the constructive/joint liability of the appellant Nos.2 and
3. They have been convicted merely on the statement of P.W.5 that they were also present but that fact has not been corroborated from any other evidence.
13. In view of above discussion and reasons, we find that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence as regards Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 11 |13 2025:JHHC:38666-DB involvement of appellant Nos.2 and 3 in the alleged occurrence. So far as appellant No.1 is concerned, there is concrete reliable evidence on record to prove his guilt in commission of murder of the deceased. Therefore, we arrive at definite conclusion that the conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 suffer from no illegality or infirmity and based upon direct evidence of ocular witnesses but so far appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, their complicity in the alleged offence is extremely doubtful in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence.
14. In view of above discussion and reasons, appeal preferred on behalf of appellant No.1 is hereby dismissed and his conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court is confirmed and upheld.
15. So far as appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are extended benefit of doubt and their conviction and sentence is hereby set aside; they are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and appeal preferred by appellant Nos.2 and 3 is allowed.
16. In the result appellant No.1 is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court, failing which, all coercive steps shall be taken by the concerned trial court to secure the arrest and custody of appellant Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 12 |13 2025:JHHC:38666-DB No.1 and send him to jail under proper conviction warrant to suffer the sentence awarded to him.
17. The appellant Nos.2 and 3 are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 23/12/2025 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded on 23/12/2025 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2003 P a g e 13 |13