2019 INSC 0122
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)
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