2026:JHHC:10930-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 241 of 2004 [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.01.2004 and 21.01.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Hazaribag in Sessions Trail No. 40 of 1997] -------- 1. Kirtan Mahto, aged about 50 years, S/o. Chhathu Mahto, and 2. Dubhani Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o. Kirtan Mahto. Both are R/o. Village- Harli, P.O. & P.S.- Barkagaon, Dist.- Hazaribagh. ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. -------- JUDGEMENT C.A.V. on 20.03.2026 Pronounced on 16/04/2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J: 1. Instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2004 and 21.01.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each with default of stipulation and R.I. for five years for the offence 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 under Section 201 of the I.P.C. alongwith fine of Rs. 1000 each with default stipulation. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 02.11.1994, one Sangeeta Kumari, daughter of Kirtan Mahto (Appellant no.1) came to the house of the informant Gallu Mahto and called upon informant’s son, namely, Chetlal Mahto and went together from his house. It is alleged that the son of the informant, namely, Chetlal Mahto did not return after two days. Then, he started searching but no trace could be found. It is further alleged that on 06.11.1994, while on searching of his son, informant was returning back on the way near CMPDI Camp, meanwhile, Dhaneshwar Ram of Village Bela Belataur informed him that a gunny bag is floating in the well, informant went near that well and brought out the bag from the well and detected that it was the dead body of his son Chetlal Mahto. It is further alleged that the son of the informant was teaching tuition to Sangeeta Kumari and in the course of time both fell into love. Sangeeta Kumari always used to write love letter to the informant’s son Chetlal Mahto, due to this reason, Kirtan Mahto (Appellant No. 1) always threatened the parents of Chetlal Mahto that his son will be killed. The informant came to know from several villagers about love affairs between Sangeeta Kumari and Chetlal Mahto and suspected that Kirtan Mahto and his associates have murdered son of the informant and threw the dead body into the well with a view to escape from legal punishment. 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 3. On the basis of Fardbeyan of informant F.I.R. was registered on against the appellants for the offence under Section 302/201/120B of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of the investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted against above named appellants as well as Sangeeta Kumari, Suresh Mahto, Arun Mahto, Anirudh Mahto and three other accused persons were not sent for trial. Sangeeta Kumari was child in conflict with law, therefore, her case was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board, wherein she was acquitted from the charges. 5. The present appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order of sentence was passed. 6. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned A.P.P. for the State. Submissions on behalf of appellants: - 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assailing the impugned judgement has submitted that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence. It is found that there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the appellants have been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. The informant has not been able to prove any love affair between the deceased and Sangeeta Kumari, the daughter of the appellant no.1. Not a single incriminating article was recovered during the investigation and even during trial no incriminating material 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 has been surfaced against the appellants showing their involvement in the alleged offence. There is no interlinked chain of circumstance conclusively leading towards guilt of the appellants. The entire reasoning of the learned Court below is based on conjecture and surmises. It is trite that suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take place of legal prove. As such, the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while concluding about the guilt of the appellants without any cogent and reliable evidence. The falsity of the prosecution case lies in lodging the F.I.R. against 8-9 accused persons and others also, but the charge-sheet was submitted only against the appellants on the basis of suspicion raised against them. The story of love affair was also not established and the main accused Sangeeta Kumari who was juvenile at the time of occurrence was acquitted from the charges. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of sentence suffers from serious illegality and liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of State:- 8. Per contra; learned A.P.P. defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants has argued that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly analysed overall aspects of the case and scrutinized the evidence available on record. There are strong circumstantial evidences against the appellants showing their involvement in commission of murder of the deceased Chetalal Mahto. 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 5 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 The learned Trial Court has considered every aspect of the case, which has been got explained in the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 9. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 10. On the basis of rival contentions of both the parties, the only question for consideration in this appeal emerges that “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal or not?” Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 11. Before adverting to record any finding on the above point, we have to appraise with the evidence available on record adduced by the prosecution during trial. 12. It appears that altogether 09 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 Bengali Mahto (Brother of the Informant) P.W.-2 Dhaneshwer Ram P.W.-3 Phulwa Devi P.W.-4 Basanti Devi (Wife of the deceased) P.W.-5 Dhaneshwar Mahto P.W.-6 Tulni Devi (Mother of the deceased) 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 6 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 P.W.-7 Dr. Prem Das P.W.-8 Gallu Mahto (Informant) P.W.-9 Mahendra Mahto 13. Apart from the oral testimony of above witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- i) Exhibit-1: Signature of PW-1 Bengali Mahto on the Inquest report. ii) Exhibit-1/1: Signature of PW-9 Mahendra Mahto on the Inquest report. iii) Exhibit-2: Post-mortem Report iv) Exhibit-3: Signature of PW-9 Mahendra Mahto on seizure list v) Exhibit-3/1: Signature of PW-1 Bengali Mahto on seizure list vi) Exhibit-4: Signature of PW-9 Mahendra Mahto on letter of Chetlal Mahto vii) Exhibit-4/1: Signature of PW-9 Mahendra Mahto on letter of Sangeeta Kumari. viii) Exhibit-5: Fardebeyan ix) Exhibit-5/1: Endorsement on Fardbeyan x) Exhibit-6: Formal F.I.R. 14. On behalf of the defence, one witness namely Ram Bilas Singh (DW- 1) has been examined and Exhibit-A, certificate issued by the principal of concerned school for showing attendance of Kirtan Mahto has been 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 7 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 adduced. Apart from above, one Court witness, namely Mahendra Kumar Pandey has also been examined. 15. PW-1 Bengali Mahto has stated that in the month of Kartik, dead body of deceased Chetlal Mahto was found from a well. It was packed in a bag and tied with heavy stone. The police also arrived at the place of occurrence, inquest report was prepared and he has also put his signature which was marked Exhibit-1. He has further deposed that Chetlal Mahto was giving tuition to daughter of Kirtan Mahto (appellant no. 1), in that course they developed love affair but Chetlal Mahto was not ready for marriage. Thereafter, dispute arose between Chetlal Mahto and Sangeeta Kumari as well as in between the family members of both. He has further stated that on Wednesday, he saw Kirtan Mahto, his wife and daughter Sangeeta Kumari alongwith Chetlal Mahto. Thereafter, he has seen the dead body of Chetlal Mahto, therefore, except last seen theory, there is nothing else in the evidence of this witness. PW-2 Dhaneshwar Ram was harvesting his paddy crop along with his wife in his field. He has stated that nearby his field, there is well, when his wife went there to fetch water in the well then she noticed something floating in the well, then she informed him. Thereafter, he informed the villagers, who in turn informed the police and he also disclosed the above fact to PW-8 Gallu Mahto and PW-1 Bengali Mahto. Police also arrived near the well. When the dead body was brought out, it was found that carcass of Chetlal Mahto was packed in a gunny bag. Thereafter, police recorded the fardbeyan of Gallu Mahto (informant) 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 8 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 and also prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of this witness only goes to show the recovery of the dead body of the deceased and nothing else. PW-3 Phulwa Devi is the wife of PW-2 Dhaneshwar Ram. She has also seen the dead body which was brought out from the well nearby her field while she was harvesting paddy crops. PW-4 Basanti Devi has stated that her first marriage was solemnized with Chetlal Mahto. On the date of occurrence, she was residing with Chetlal Mahto (deceased) in his house. She has further deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 12:00 noon, her husband proceeded from house after taking lunch. “She states that her husband himself proceeded from house, no one had come to call him. Thereafter, at about 4:00 PM, Sangeeta Kumari came to call her husband Chetlal Mahto for tuition.” Thereafter, no clue of her husband was found rather dead body was recovered from a well. She also admits that there was no kind of relationship between her husband and Sangeeta Kumari. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is not reliable to the point of incriminating circumstance against the appellants. PW-5 Dhaneshwar Mahto, aged about 18 years, S/o. Chanu Mahto has also heard halla that a dead body is lying in the well, and then, he proceeded from his house and saw the dead body of Chetlal Mahto. He has further stated that “On Wedensday, Chetalal Mahto had come to his tea shop and went after taking tea, thereafter, he has not seen him.” This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and has 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 9 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 denied the statement recorded by police wherein he has stated that Chetlal Mahto had put his cycle in the tea shop and went to the house of Kirtan Mahto. He has also denied any love affair between Chetlal Mahto and Sangeeta Kumari. There is nothing in the evidence of this witness showing any incriminating circumstance against the appellants. PW-6 Tulni Devi is the mother of the deceased Chetlal Mahto. She has given different story that on the date of occurrence Sangeeta Kumari along with her mother came in the noon and proceeded along with her son Chetlal Mahto and since then, her son was not found and her dead body was found on Sunday from a well. According to her evidence, wife of Kirtan Mahto was desiring that Chetlal Mahto would marry her daughter Sangeeta Devi which was declined by Chetlal Mahto, then she started threatening. Thereafter, dead body of her son was recovered from a well. In her cross-examination, she fairly admits that “accused Kirtan Mahto (Appellant No. 1) is also teacher and she never talked with him.” She also admits that at the time of death of her son Chetlal Mahto was married. She also admits that her son used to give tuition to several girls of the village. In the above context, the evidence of this witness regarding love affair, insisting upon marriage of deceased with daughter of the Kirtan Mahto does not appear to be tenable. PW-7 Dr. Prem Das is the Medical Officer, who performed post- 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 10 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 mortem of deceased Chetlal Mahto on 07.11.1994 and found following external injuries: I) Right eyes protruded, left closed, mouth open. Body decomposed. Bleds present with maggot in right Auxiliary and chest region. II) No legation mark was seen on the neck. III) Internal- Trachea wall congested, hyoid bone, cricoid cartilage, thorax cartilage intact. Chest- Cage intact. Heart- All chambers full of blood clot. Lungs- spongy, congested and with blood-water on cutting. Liver-Spleen and Kidney-intact and congested. The stomach contains mucocoids fluid 6 ounes. Wall was normal. Bladder- empty. IV) Cause of death- Asphyxia due to throttling and drawning. Time since death between 5 to 7 days. V) This witness has proved this medical report which is marked as Exhibit-2. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that no external injury was found on any part of body of the deceased. PW-8 Gallu Mahto is the informant in this case. He has corroborated his earliest statement recorded as Fardbeyan and has deposed that his elder son Chetlal Mahto was murdered about 7 ½ years (seven and half years) ago on Wednesday. It was occasion of Sahrai (Diwali). In the noon his son was called upon by Sangeeta Kumari, daughter of Kirtan Mahto, thereafter, his son never returned and his dead body was found packed in a gunny bag and thrown in the well. Police arrived at the place of 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 11 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 occurrence and dead body was brought out from well, he was present there and saw the dead body of his son Chetlal Mahto. He has further deposed that Sangeeta Kumari fell into love with his son during tuition. Thereafter, accused persons were threatening the brother of this witness to kill Chetlal Mahto. Some other family members of the accused, had also threatened to his wife to kill her son. He has also stated that accused persons were desiring to solemnize marriage of Sangeeta Kumari with Chetlal Mahto. In his cross examination, he admits that at the time of occurrence his son was married after death of his first wife. Chetlal Mahto never disclosed to this witness that he was in love affair with Sangeeta Kumari. He also admits that Kirtan Mahto (appellant no.1) never told him that he desires to marry his daughter Sangeeta Kumari with Chetlal Mahto. The above evidence of this witness does not disclose any valuable incriminating circumstance against the appellants showing their indulgence in commission of murder of the deceased. PW-9 Mahendra Mahto- is the witness of production-cum-seizure list. He has brought some letters allegedly written by Sangeeta Kumari to Chetlal Mahto which was sized by the police. These letter were marked as Exhibits- 4/1 and 4/2. He has also proved his signature on the inquest report. As regards other circumstance of this case, he has stated nothing. 16. On the other hand, case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication only on the basis of suspicion. 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 12 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 17. The defence has also examined one witness DW-1 Ram Bilas Singh. Accordingy to his evidence, on 02.11.1994 from 10:30 to 4:00 PM, Kirtan Mahto (appellant no. 1), who is assistant teacher in Middle School, Korrah Hazaribagh was present and on that day a meeting was also held. He has proved the certificate of presence of Kirtan Mahto in the school which is marked as Exhibit-A. He has also admitted that Exhibit-A has been prepared on the basis of attendance register but the attendance register of the accused has not been brought before Court. 18. One Mahendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate Clerk has been examined as formal witness, who has proved Fardbeyan of the informant in the handwriting of ASI S. Kumar marked as Exhibit-5. Endorsement of Fardbeyan marked as Exhibit-5/1 and formal F.I.R. in the handwriting of ASI Rajaram, Barkagaon police station, which is marked as Exhibit-6. 19. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall aspects of the case as testified by the prosecution witnesses during trial and also examined the evidence available on record. 20. It appears that the learned Trial Court has recorded following incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellants; A) The deceased Chetlal Mahto was in love with Sangeeta Kumari; B) There were intimate physical relationship between the deceased and Sangeeta Kumari; C) The deceased Chetlal Mahto used to stay invariably in the night with Sangeeta Kumari in her house to the knowledge of the 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 13 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 accused Dubhani Devi (appellant no. 2), mother of Sangeeta Kumari. D) The deceased went with the accused Kirtan Mahto, Dubhani Devi and Sangeeta Kumari in the afternoon on Wednesday i.e. on 02.11.1994 in presence of PW-1 the uncle of deceased and PW-6 mother of the deceased, who were last seen and thereafter his dead body was found packed in a bag tied with rope and thrown into the well. The deceased Chetlal Mahto left his house along with accused persons wearing Ganjee and Lungi and at the time of preparation of inquest report, the deceased was found waring Ganjee and Lungi E) The accused Kirtan Mahto was pressing the deceased Chetlal Mahto to marry his daughter Sangeeta Kumari but he was not ready to marry her since he was already married. The wife of Kirtan Mahto and Anirudh were also pressing Chetlal Mahto to marry with Sangeeta Kumari. F) The accused Ramcharan Mahto, the uncle of Kirtan Mahto who has not been sent up for trial had given threatening to PW-1 Bengali Mahto to check the behaviour of Chetlal Mahto from loving his grand-daughter, otherwise he will be killed. The wife of Kirtan Mahto had also given threatening to Chetlal Mahto in presence of PW-6 mother of the deceased to marry with her daughter to which Chetlal Mahto was not ready. 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 14 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 G) The dead body of the deceased was recovered from the well, kept in a bag. H) The doctor PW-7, who performed post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased has opined that the cause of death is Asphyxia due to throttling and drowning. 21. In view of the above circumstances, the learned Trial Court has arrived at conclusion that complete chain of circumstances have been proved which unerringly and unmistakably points towards the guilt of accused Kirtan Mahto and Dubhani Devi in commission of murder of the deceased Chetlal Mahto. The learned Trial Court has also disbelieved the Exhibit-A, the certificate of attendance issued by the concerned school of the accused Kirtan Mahto. 22. The evidence of witnesses as discussed above clearly goes to show that as per F.I.R, only Sangeeta Kumari came to call the deceased Chetlal Mahto from his house and accompanied with him, thereafter, no clue about the deceased was found. The wife of the deceased (PW-4) states that no one had called upon to her husband in the noon rather he himself went out from the house and at that time no family members were present. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. The other witnesses who were not family members of the deceased have claimed to see the deceased that he was going along with present appellants and his daughter which is absolutely in contradiction with main witnesses, who are family members of the deceased. We also find that some letters were produced during trial allegedly given by Sangeeta Kumari, who has been 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 15 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 acquitted after inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board. So far as threatening given by the accused has also not been proved by any witness. It is alleged that grand-father of Sangeeta Kumari had threatened to brother of the informant, namely Bengali Mahto PW-1. There is no iota of evidence that the informant or his wife or any other person were threatened at any point of time that his son will be killed. Therefore, the theory of last seen itself is not free from doubt rather the whole prosecution case hinges upon suspicion against the appellants on hypothetical story of love affair between the deceased and Sangeeta Kumari. Moreover, there is no close proximity where and when the witnesses claim the deceased and accused persons were together and in the death of deceased. Not a single witness has been able to state as to the place of occurrence, where the appellants were seen along with the deceased. Moreover, simply the theory of last seen is not said to be conclusive prove about guilt of the appellants. 23. In our considered view, the learned Trial Court has formulated the circumstances which were self-contrary from witness to witness and scattered circumstances are synthesized for the purpose of constituting a complete chain of circumstance. Even if, the last seen theory as propounded by the witnesses and love affair between the deceased and Sangeeta Kumari be accepted to be true, there is no other link evidence to establish conclusively the guilt of the appellants in commission of murder of the deceased. Mere motive, howsoever, strong it may be, cannot be taken as conclusive proof. Similarly, the suspicion, howsoever gave it may be, cannot be treated as legal prove. 2026:JHHC:10930-DB 16 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2004 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, we are of the affirm view that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while placing reliance upon inconsistent circumstances available on record for basing the conviction of the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 25. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They are also discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 26. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 27. Let the copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Date 16/04/2026 Rahul/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 17/04/2026