2026:JHHC:10911-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 569 of 2002 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2002 and sentence dated 07.06.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2000] -------- Bidyadar Mahato, S/o. Bahadur Mahto, R/o. Village- Kanak Chas, P.S.- Chandankayari, Dist.- Bokaro. ... ... Appellant 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 Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. -------- JUDGEMENT C.A.V. on 23.03.2026 Pronounced on 16/04/2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J: 1. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.06.2002 and 07.06.2002 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently without default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 Another accused, namely, Bahadur Mahto, who faced the trial jointly, got benefit of doubt and was acquitted from the charges. Factual Matrix:- 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 30.12.1998 at about 2:00 PM, the informant Anantlal Chakravorty alongwith Sanat Chakravorty wen to the house of Vidyadhar Mahto (appellant) for complaining as to why they assaulted their she-goat, upon this Vidyadhar Mahto stabbed in the stomach of Sanat Chakravorty on left side. It is also alleged that when the informant intervened, then Vidyadhar Mahto pierced knife in his stomach on left side. The informant raised alarm than his father Dhananjay Chakravorty and neighbours rushed to the place of occurrence to rescue them but the accused Vidyadhar Mahto fled away. Both the injured were brought to Baramasia T.O.P., where in the way Sanat Chakravarty succumbed to his injuries. The fardbeyan of Anantlal Chakravorty (informant) was recorded by the officer in-charge, Baramasia TOP in presence of his father Dhananjay Chakravorty. It is also alleged that Vidyadhar Mahto with an intention to kill the informant and Sanat Chakravorty has inflicted knife blow to them. 3. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Chandankayari (Baramasia) P.S. Case No. 138 of 1998 dated 30.12.1998 was registered for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completion of the investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No. 55 of 2000 was registered. 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 5. The present appellant and co-accused 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. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailing the impugned judgement has contended that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and convicted the appellant beyond weight of evidence. It is further submitted that the knife allegedly used in commission of assault to the injured persons including the deceased was never produced during trial. Moreover, no chemical examination report of the blood stained knife was brought on record to connect the alleged weapon for offence with the occurrence. The prosecution has also failed to prove the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence and also use of weapon like lathi or knife. It is further elaborated that PW-3 Namita Chakravarty has claimed to see her father- in-law Dhananjay Chakravarty was assaulted by Bahadur Mahto by lathi, similarly PW-4 Dhananjay Chakravarty, the injured has also stated that he was assaulted by lathi on left side of chest and also by fist by Bahadur Mahto. The injured-cum-informant himself has not been able to state that he was assaulted by a knife blow, which absolutely falsifies the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the name of another co- accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R who was also dragged in this case on false evidence of witness but acquitted by the learned Trial Court itself. 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 Therefore, in view of contradictory testimony of witnesses, conviction of appellant suffers from serious illegality. It is further submitted that as per the evidence of eye witness-cum-injured, it is crystal clear that the informant party including the deceased went to the house of the appellant and started scuffling with him on trivial matter of cattle grazing and single blow by knife was sustained by the deceased. The occurrence took place in sudden manner without pre-meditation and intention to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the whole spectrum of the case is covered not under section 302 of the I.P.C. but Exception IV appended to the definition of murder and offence falls under section 304 of the I.P.C. As such, at best the offence falls under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and section 307 of the I.P.C., for which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. The maximum sentence for the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. is also 10 years. The appellant has also undergone imprisonment for 06 years, 06 months and 28 days during investigation/trial and post-conviction. Hence, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Accordingly, his conviction and sentence requires to be altered and modified. It is further submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1998 and now more than two decades have been lapsed, both the parties are residing peacefully and have settled in their life. Therefore, sending the appellant to judicial custody to serve remaining period of punishment would not serve any useful purpose rather it will ruin his family. Therefore, in the matter of sentence, a lenient view may be taken. Accordingly, this appeal may be allowed. 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 5 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 Submissions on behalf of State:- 8. Per contra; learned A.P.P. defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant has argued on merits and has submitted that there is no legal force in the point of argument raised on behalf of the appellant. There is clear cut evidence of eye witness including the informant that the deceased was stabbed by a knife on his stomach by the present appellant. The informant was also assaulted by knife which finds corroboration from injury report with intention to kill him but he survived. The injuries found on the body of the deceased was sufficient to cause death. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. It is further submitted that factual aspect of the case clearly indicates that the scuffle broke between the parties on trivial matter of cattle grazing and complain was raised by the informant party regarding his she-goat, to which the appellant got enraged and assaulted by knife to the deceased as well as the informant, therefore, the above aspect may be considered in this appeal. 9. We have gone through the records of case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 10. On the basis of rival points or contentions of both the parties, the only point for consideration in this appeal emerges that “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 6 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 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 apprise with the evidences 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 Bhavtosh Banerjee P.W.-2 Basu Das P.W.-3 Namita Chakraborty P.W.-4 Dahananjay Chakraborty P.W.-5 Nibaran Mukherjee P.W.-6 Mahadev Banerjee P.W.-7 Anant Chakraborty (Informant-cum-injured) P.W.-8 Ashok Kumar Singh P.W.-9 Dr. R. P. Verma 13. Apart from the oral testimony of above witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- i) Exhibit-1: Inquest report. ii) Exhibit-1/a: Seizure of blood stained knife iii) Exhibit-1/b: Seizure of blood stained soil iv) Exhibit-2: Fardbeyan v) Exhibit-3: Signature of PW-6 Mahadev Banerjee on seizure list 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 7 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 vi) Exhibit-3/A: Signature of PW-7 Anantlal Chakraborty on fardbeyan. vii) Exhibit-3/B: Signature of PW-4 Dhananjay Chakraborty on fardbeyan. viii) Exhibit-4: Formal F.I.R. ix) Exhibit-5: Post mortem report of Sanat Chakraborty 14. PW-1 Bhavtosh Banerjee arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing halla on 30.12.1998 at about 2:00 PM and saw injury on the left side of abdomen of Sanat Chakraborty (deceased) and Anant Chakraborty (informant). Anant Chakraborty disclosed him that Vidyadhar Mahto had stabbed both of them. He is also the witness of inquest report which is mentioned as Exhibit-1 and proved his signature. PW-2 Basu Das has also arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing halla and saw the injured persons were lying and were taken to hospital. According to him, Dhananjay Chakraborty (father of the informant) and Anantlal Chakraborty told him that Vidyadhar Mahto had stabbed them by knife, therefore, this witness is also hearsay witness of the occurrence. PW-3 Namita Chakraborty is the wife of Sanat Chakraborty . She also came out from the house after hearing halla and heard that Bahadur Mahto instigated Vidyadhar Mahto to assault. Thereafter, Vidyadhar Mahto stabbed in the abdomen of Sanat Chakraborty and also in the abdomen of Anantlal Chakraborty. Her father-in-law Dhananjay Chakraborty intervened but he was also assaulted by lathi by Bahadur 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 8 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 Mahto. She also admits the enmity between the accused and the informant party. PW-4 Dhananjay Chakraboty is the father of the informant. He also came out of the house on hearing halla and saw Vidyadhar Mahto stabbed Sanat Chakraborty and Anantlal Chakraborty on left side of the stomach. He was also assaulted by Bahadur Mahto on left side of his chest with lathi. PW-5 Nibaran Mukherjee also came out of his house on hearing halla and saw Sanat Chakraborty and Anantlal Chakraborty were sustained severe injuries on their left portion of body. Anantlal Chakraborty told him that Vidyadhar Mahto has stabbed him in stomach. He is also witness of inquest report. Admittedly, he is not the witness of the occurrence rather immediately came to know about the occurrence from injured person. PW-6 Mahadev Banerjee also came to the place of occurrence after hearing halla and it was disclosed by Anantlal Chakraborty that Vidyadhar Mahto stabbed both of them. Blood stained soil was seized by the police and seizure list was prepared. He has proved his signature in seizure list as Exhibit-3. PW-7 Anantlal Chakraborty is the most important witness of this case, who happens to be sole sufferer injured. According to his evidence, Vidyadhar Mahto stabbed him and Sanat Chakraborty on instigation of his father Bahadur Mahto. He and his brother Sanat Chakraborty both sustained knife injury on their left side of stomach. He has further proved that his fardbeyan was recorded by the police at T.O.P. at about 4:00 PM. 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 9 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 He has proved his signature as Exhibit-3/A and signature of his father as Exhibit-3/B. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that there was enmity with the accused since last 4-5 years regarding construction of wall. He also states in his cross-examination that he was wearing a Ganji (Baniyan) and Lungi at the time of incident and there were brief holes in his Ganji (Baniyan). His Ganji (Baniyan), underwear and lungi were stained with blood. His brother was also bwearing a ganji (Baniyan), full- shirt, underwear and lungi and there were brief holes in his shirt and ganji (Baniyan). PW-8 S.I. Ashok Kumar Singh has deposed that on 30.12.1998, he was posted as Officer in-charge of Barmasia O.P. and assumed the charge of investigation of this case. He recorded Fardbeyan of the informant Anantlal Chakraborty at about 4:00 P.M. He also prepared inquest report of the deceased Sanat Chakraborty in presence of witness which is marked as Exhibit-1. He further states that on the same day at about 5:00 P.M. Vidyadhar Mahto surrendered at police station and on search, a blood stained knife was recovered from his right side of pocket of full- pant. He also prepared the seizure list of blood stained knife marked as Exhibit-1/A. He has exhibited the place of occurrence and also collected blood stained soil and prepared seizure list in presence of witness marked as Exihibit-1/B. He has further proved formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4. In his cross examination, he fairly admits that name of Bahadur Mahto, father of accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R. In their statement, also no witnesses have taken the name of Bahadur Mahto as 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 10 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 assailant of any person. He also admits that FSL report of blood stained knife was also not received. PW-9 Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma has conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Sanat Chakraborty and has found the following: i) On External examination: blood stains on the left palm and on left forearm and left side of abdomen. The injury was single stab wound 2 ½" x 1" abdominal cavity thereon deep and on left side of upper abdominal wall in midcaricular line placed vergicaly with slit shaped with two acute angles above and below. ii) On Dis-section: the abdominal cavity was full of blood and blood clots. The soft tissues in the interior wall at the side of wound were torn and lacerated and blood and blood clots were intermingled. iii) The peritoneum wall was torn and lacerated and diserted and contained blood mixed and fluid. He has also opined that injury was ante-mortem caused by sharp edge object having tow edges may be by knife and cause of death- due to cardio respiratory failure due to massive haemorrhage, shock and injury to the heart and intestine. This witness has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit-5. 15. On the other hand, case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and due to previous enmity. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 11 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 16. We have given thoughtful consideration to the testimony of ocular witness including the informant-cum-sole surviving injured. 17. It is crystal clear that old enmity was going on between the parties as admitted in the depositions of the respective witnesses. Thus, the informant and his brother Sanat Chakraborty (deceased) went to the house of the appellant complaining about his she-goat. There is no doubt that the present appellant on the spur of moment under heat of passion and on a sudden dispute and scuffle assaulted both the deceased and the informant inflicting stab wound which also finds corroboration from the post mortem report of the deceased and admittedly the injured informant was also treated in BGH Hospital for 8-10 days for his injuries. There is no material contradiction or infirmity in the evidence of ocular witnesses including the informant to create doubt about the genesis, manner and place of occurrence. The father of the present appellant was added as co- accused during investigation against whom there was simple allegation of assaulting by lathi to the father of the informant which could not be substantiated by cogent evidence, hence, he was acquitted. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out about some lacuna and irregularities in the investigation of the case and non-availability of blood stained knife as well as FSL report to conclusively prove that the same was used in commission of the alleged offence. In our view the above circumstances are corroborative in nature, so far substantive evidence of witnesses is concerned, it is conclusively proved that it is none else but the appellant who has caused stabbed injury to the informant and his brother who died in course of taking to the hospital. It is trite that any 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 12 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 lacuna or irregularities in the investigation appearing in the prosecution case can't give any premium to the accused, unless such type of irregularities appear to be material and sufficient to discard the prosecution case. 18. In the instant case, we find that the occurrence took place in a sudden manner without pre-meditation and any intention to kill the deceased, therefore, case falls under exception 4 appended to section 300 of the I.P.C. and the offence committed by the appellant comes under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is altered and modified for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. for causing stab injury to the informant which was also likely to cause death, therefore, it is maintained. 19. So far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is quite obvious that the appellant has been sentenced for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. for R.I. of 10 years and for the offence under Section 304 Part-II, the maximum sentence prescribed is R.I. of 10 years. 20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment of 06 years, 06 months and 28 days during trial and post-conviction and the occurrence is of year 1998, now more than two decades has been lapsed and both the parties have restored in their normal life, therefore, we are of the considered view that the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice in this case. 2026:JHHC:10911-DB 13 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 569 of 2002 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in judgment of conviction and sentence as stated above. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 is altered and modified to Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced for imprisonment already undergone by him during trial of the case, i.e., 06 years 06 months and 28 days. 22. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 23. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 24. 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