Supreme Court of India
MUKUL MAHTO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1154
- Decided
- 15 October 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of the accused under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, finding the evidence reliable and the judgment free of infirmity.
Summary
The appellants were charged with assaulting the deceased with a lathi and an axe, which resulted in his death, and also assaulting three other villagers who came to his aid. The trial court acquitted them on the ground that the eye‑witnesses were relatives of the deceased and that the medical evidence was insufficient, including the non‑examination of the doctor who first attended the victims. On appeal, the Jharkhand High Court held that the eye‑witnesses' testimonies were reliable, that the absence of an incised wound did not preclude a conviction under Section 326 IPC, and convicted the accused under Section 326 read with Section 34, also sentencing one accused under Section 324. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, particularly the credibility of the witnesses and the relevance of the medical testimony, and found no infirmity in the High Court's reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of the alleged unreliability of eye‑witnesses and the non‑examination of the doctor.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC despite the absence of an incised wound.
- Whether the High Court correctly applied the law on joint participation (Section 34) and the appropriate offence (Section 326 vs. Section 302).
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 323, s. 324, s. 326, s. 34, s. 341, s. 506
Subjects
assaulthomicideeye‑witness credibilitySection 326 IPCSection 34 IPCconvictionacquittalcriminal appealmedical testimony
Judgment
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 480
A MUKUL MAHTO AND ORS. '1-
;
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 862-863 of 2001)
OCTOBER 15, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
·>----
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 326 rlw S; 34 - Accused assault- w
c ing deceased with lathi and axe resulting in his death - Eye-
witnesses also injured - Acquittal by trial court since accusa-
tion not established - However, conviction uls. 326 rlw s. 34
by High Court considering the manner of assault and the sur-
rounding factors - Interference with - Held: Not called for -
High Court held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses
D
regarding the presence and participation of accused in the
occurrence was reliable and truthful - Victims of assault would (
-r-
not normally spare the real culprits and falsely implicate in-
nocent accused persons - Also evidence of informant of con-
siderable significance - Further, non-examination of doctor
E who examined the witnesses not fatal as a/so absence of in-
}
cised wound when weapon of assault was axe.
According to the prosecution ·case, on the fateful
r·
~-
day,
accused persons way laid the deceased and abused him.
F When the deceased retorted back, ac~used persons as-
saulted the deceased with lathi and axe. On hearing the le'-
cries, the informant and PW-3, PW-8, PW-7 rushed from
their house to save the deceased and they were also as-
saulted. Three villagers witnessed the incident. The de-
:G ceased and the injured prosecution witnesses were taken
to the hospital. Two days later, the deceased succumbed
to his injuries. FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried ~·
~
out. Accused were charged u/s 302 r/w s. 34 IPC. Trial court
acquitted them since the accusations were not estab-
480 t;
H
MUKUL MAHTO & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 481
&ANR.
~ lished. However, High Court set aside the acquittal and A
I
convicted the accused u/s. 326 r/w s. 34 IPC and imposed
rigourous imprisonment for four years. Accused D was
convicted for offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and sen-
tenced to one year imprisonment. Hence the present ap-
peals. B
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
----'(
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has referred to the evi-
..,.. dence of PWs 3, 7 and 8. It has been indicated that the
doctor who examined these witnesses and the deceased c
initially, has not been examined during trial. Since the ho-
micidal death has not been disputed, the non-examination
of the doctor is not fatal. Another plea which found accep-
tance by trial Court was the absence of incised wound when
weapon of assault was axe. The witnesses had also stated
D
about use of lathi. It is also to be noted that, as done by the
High Court that axes which are generally used in villages
-+ for cutting trees and branches are not so sharp like sword
or knife and when used on the head, can also cause lacer-
ated injuries. [Para 6] [485-8-C-D]
E
Ch. Madhusudhana Reddy v. State of A.P 1994 SCC
(Crl.) 275 - referred to.
1.2 Even if the witnesses had not suffered any inju-
ries yet their version as eye witnesses if credible and co-
gent can be accepted and acted upon and there is no rea- F
- f
son to discard their evidence on the ground that a doctor
who examined their injuries was not examined. The High
Court has concluded that the evidence of the prosecu-
tion witnesses regarding the presence and participation
of the accused in the occurrence is reliable and truthful. G
The victims of assault would not normally spare the real
j!- culprits and falsely implicate innocent accused persons.
Their evidence clearly shows that the deceased was ly-
ing injured at the spot where the accused persons were
present and they assaulted PWs 3, 7 and 8 when they went H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
A to rescue him. With reference to the evidence it has been
noticed by the High Court that the common house of the
deceased and PWs 3, 7 and 8, the eye witnesses is at a
very_ short distance and it is quite natural that on hearing
alarm they had rushed to the place of occurrence. Apart
, B from that the evidence of PW-10 the informant is of con-
siderable significance. The High Court has noted that
there were some exaggeration in his statement though
reading the same carefully alongwith the evidence of PWs
3, 7 and 8 lends support to the prosecution case. [Paras 7
c and 8] [485-E-F-G]
1.3 The High Court found the present appellants
guilty. But considering the manner of assault and the sur-
rounding factors convicted them for offence punishable
under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The judg-
D ment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity
to warrant interference. [Para 9] [486-B]
CASE LAW REFERENCE
1994 sec (Crl.) 275 Referred to. Para 6
E CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 862-863 of 2001
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.3.2000 of
the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bencti, Ranchi in
F Government Appeal No. 7 of 1990 (R) with Criminal Revision
No. 61 of 1990 (R) \'"
Dr. K.D. Prasad, A.N. Deo and Satish Vig for the Appel-
~~s. ,
Rajesh Pathak and B.B. Singh for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals
is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High
H Court, allowing the appeal filed by the State and thereby setting
MUKUL MAHTO & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 483
& ANR. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~ aside the acquittal of accused-respondents before it. All the five A
I
accused persons were convicted for offences punishable un-
der Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short the 'IPC') and were sentenced to undergo rigor-
ous imprisonment for four years. Accused Durga was convicted
for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced B
to undergo imprisonment for one year. The revision petition filed
by the informant was also disposed of. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, had directed acquittal of the ac-
cused persons who are appellant Nos. 1 to 5 in the present
appeal. c
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 12.8.1984 at about 7.30 p.m. while the informant was
sleeping in his house, his brother Bistu Mahto (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the 'deceased') visited his house to borrow his bul-
D
lock. As soon as the deceased came out of the house, after talk
with the informant, all the five accused way laid him and started
to abuse him. The deceased retorted and exchanged abuses
with them, whereafter, the accused persons assaulted and
wounded the deceased with lathi and axe. On hearing his cry,
the informant and others i.e. Golak Mahto (PW-3), Kirtan Mahto, E
Laxman Mahto (PW-8) and Jitu Mahto (PW-7) rushed from their
house to save the deceased. But the accused persons vari-
ously assaulted them as well as the informant with lathi and axe.
Jaleshwar Mahto, Asu Mahto, Suphan Modi (not examined) and
some other villagers had also witnessed the occurrence. F
_,
The further prosecution case is that deceased who had
sustained bleeding head injury and the other injured namely PWs
3, 7, 8 and Kirtan Mahto were carried with the help of the villag-
ers and admitted to the State Dispensary, Baliapur for treat-
G
ment wherefrom the deceased and PW-3 whose condition was
serious were shifted to Sindri F.C.I. Hospital and after two days
the deceased succumbed to the wounds in the hospital, while
undergoing treatment.
On the basis of the information lodged, investigation was H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
A undertaken. After the death of the deceased on 15.8.1984
charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was added
in addition to the registration of the case under Sections 341,
323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons
pleaded innocence. It was stated that accused Durga had insti-
B tuted a case against 11 persons including the informant, the
deceased, Golak Mahto (PW-3), Kirtan Mahto, Laxman Mahto
(PW-8) and one Nitu Mahto. The trial Court came to hold that )-·
accusations were not established. The main reason given for
the acquittal of accused persons was that PWs 1 and 2 were - '""-
c hearsay witnesses and PWs 4 and 6 are related to the de-
ceased. They claimed to be the eye witnesses to the 0ccur-
rence and were not cited in the first information report. PW-8
was an injured witness who had.stated that when he reached
the place of occurrence, none was present except the acq.1sed
persons and the prosecution party and this falsified the claim of
0
PWs 4 and 6 that they had witnessed the actual assault. One of
the injured Kiran Mahto was not examined and no explanation
was given forhis non examination. The evidence of PWs 3, 7, 8
and 10 was held to be not sufficient though they claimed to have
sustained injuries. Another factor which weighed with the trial
E Court was that the witnesses were close relatives of the de-
ceased.
3. The High Court as noted above, reversed the conclu-
sions and directed conviction.
F 4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appel- \'"-
lants submitted that the parameters of an appeal against ac-
quittal have not been -kept in view by the High _Court. The trial
Court had doubted the credibility of the so called eye witnesses
PWs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 who were relatives of the deceased.
G The High Court found that the evidence of PWs 3, 7, 8 alongwith
PW-10 as well as the evidence of PWs 4 and 6 inspire confi-
dence. The High Court found that the acquittal as directed was ~
improper. It is submitted that the view of the trial Court was a
possible view and, therefore, the High Court should not have
H interfered.
MUKUL MAHTO & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 485
& ANR. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
--l 5. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the A
view of the trial Court is unsustainable. Even after applying the
yardsticks highlighted by this Court the judgment of the High
Court does not suffer from any infirmity.
6. The High Court has referred to the evidence of PWs 3,
7 and 8. It has been indicated that the doctor who examined B
these witnesses and the deceased initially, has not been exam-
~
ined during trial. Since the homicidal death has not been dis-
puted, the non-examination of the doctor is not fatal. Another
plea which found acceptance by trial Court was the absence of
incised wound when weapon of assault was axe. The witnesses c
had also stated about use of lathi. It is also to be noted that, as
done by the Hfgh Court that axes which are generally used in
villages for cutting trees and branches are not so sharp like
sword or knife and when used on the head, can also cause lac-
erated injuries. (See Ch. Madhusudhana Reddy v. State of A.P. D
1994 sec (Crl.) 275)
--+ 7. The matter can be looked from another angle. Even if
they had not suffered any injuries yet their version as eye wit-
nesses if credible and cogent can be accepted a:nd acted upon
and there is no reason to discard their evidence on the ground E
that a doctor who examined their injuries w~s not exarl1ined.
The High Court has concluded that the evidence of PWs re-
garding the presence and participation of the accused in the
occurrence is reliable and truthful. The victims of assault would
not normally spare the real culprits and falsely implicate inno- F
-t cent accused persons. Their evidence clearly shows that the
deceased was lying injured at the spot where the accused per-
sons were present and they assaulted PWs 3, 7 and 8 when
they went to rescue him. With reference to the evidence it has
been noticed by the High Court that the common house of the G
deceased and PWs 3, 7 and 8, the eye witnesses is at a very
..t- short distance and it is quite natural that on hearing alarm they
had rushed to the place of occurrence.
8. Apart from that the evidence of PW-1 Othe informant is
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
A of considerable significance. The High Court has noted that there t--
1
were some·exaggeration in his statement though reading the
same carefully alongwith the evidence of PWs.3, 7 and 8 lends
support to the prosecution case. .
9. The High Court found the present appellants guilty. But
B considering the manner of assault and the surrounding factors
convicted them for offence punishable under Section 326 read
with Section 34 IPC. The judgment of the High Court does not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
c 10. The appeals are dismissed.
_ N.J. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "assault"Sign in to search