IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Sukai Mahto @ Shukai Mahto, Son of Late Lalbabu Mahto and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 131 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2016
Decided On : 04-09-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 – Murder and rioting – Common object – If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of common purpose, or if members knew such an offence was likely to be committed, then every member of that assembly is liable for that offence – In cases where a large number of accused constituting an "unlawful assembly" are alleged to have attacked and killed one or more persons, it is not necessary that each of accused should inflict fatal injuries or any injury at all and by invoking Section 149 of IPC, members of an unlawful assembly can be punished on the ground of vicarious liability even though they are not accused of having inflicted fatal injuries – Criminal Appeals partly allowed. (Para 48)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 and 148 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 (2) – Murder and rioting – Common object – Life imprisonment – Injured witnesses are granted special status and they offer an extremely valuable piece of evidence – Even though deceased may have died primarily on the account of fatal blow inflicted by appellants, nonetheless all other appellants and other accused persons are liable to be convicted under Section 302 of IPC with aid of Section 149 of IPC – Considering facts and circumstances of present case and evidence which has been brought on record to prove allegations levelled against appellants beyond pale of any reasonable doubt as well as considering credibility and trustworthiness of evidence of prosecution, which has not been discredited during course of cross-examination coupled with medical evidence on record, no error in impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence – However, appellants did not have any premeditated mind to kill anyone – No injury has been inflicted on vital parts of body of deceased – Present case would not fall within purview Section 302 of IPC rather it would, at best attract Section 304 Part-II of IPC, in absence of any intention to cause death of deceased – It would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence modified – Criminal Appeals partly allowed. (Paras 49, 50, 51, 52, 63 and 64)
Criminal Law – Just Sentence – With mere passage of time, objects of deterrence as also protection of society are not lost – No symbolic punishment should be awarded, especially in view of Principle of Proportionality in prescribing liability according to culpability of each kind of criminal conduct, inasmuch as showing of undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system, leading to undermining public confidence in efficacy of law as also would be resultantly counterproductive in long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in sentencing system. (Para 60)
JUDGMENT :
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC”) arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2014 (arising out of Bagaha P.S. Case No.197 of 2013), by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Judge”), hence these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by the present common judgment and order. By the said judgment dated 17.12.2015, the learned Trial Judge has convicted all the appellants of the aforesaid appeals under Section 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 /149 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof, they have been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months separately. The appellants of the aforesaid two cases have also been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 148 of the IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Short facts of the case are that the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Kishore Mahto was recorded by Jainath Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagaha Police Station on 11.05.2013 at 07:45 p.m. at Emergency Ward of Sub-divisional Hospital, Bagaha, West Champaran. The informant Kishore Mahto has stated in his fardbeyan that on 11.05.2013 at about 03:45 in the evening, his elder brother Adalat Mahto along with Prahlad Mahto (PW-2) and Nandu Mahto (PW-3) had gone to the mango orchard situated towards west of village-Kotwa Kapardhika for cutting branch of mango tree for making stool (peedha) for marriage purpose and during the course thereof, the appellants and others totaling ten in all had arrived there. Chhota Mahto was armed with farsa, Sukai Mahto and Arbind Mahto were armed with bhala while all others were armed with lathi and danda. As soon as the aforesaid accused persons had arrived there, Chhota Mahto started assaulting the elder brother of the informant with farsa with the intention of killing him, whereafter Prahlad Mahto and Nandu Mahto, who were cutting the branch of mango tree had tried to save themselves and during the course thereof, Prahlad received injury on the left small finger with the butt of axe. Thereafter, Prahlad Mahto and Nandu Mahto had fled away, fearing that they would be assaulted and came running to the house, however in the meantime the accused persons had caught hold of the elder brother of the informant, namely Adalat Mahto and with an intention to kill him, Chhota Mahto had assaulted him with farsa on his right arm and on the portion below elbow of the wrist of left hand as also on the right leg below knee, resulting in the deceased being cut badly. Thereafter, Arbind Mahto had assaulted the elder brother of the informant by bhala on his waist, leading to deep injury being inflicted. The informant has further stated in his fardbeyan that his cousin brother, who was along with his elder brother, had come to the house and informed him about the occurrence, whereafter they had gone to the place of occurrence where the informant saw his elder brother in an unconscious state, whereupon they had taken him to the Sub-divisional Hospital, Bagaha for treatment, from where he was referred for better treatment to Bettiah. The informant has further stated that it is his claim that the accused persons had assaulted his elder brother with the intention of killing him, have badly cut his hands and legs and there is little chance of his survival. The fardbeyan was read over to the informant, which he had also read and heard and after having understand the same as also finding the same to be correct, he had put his thumb impression over



The court reclassified the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, emphasizing knowledge of likely death suffices under IPC Section 304 (Part-II).
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
(1) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – When repeated blows are inflicted on parietal and temporal regions with lathis, resulting in bone-deep lacerations causing fractures and brain damage a....
The court held that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditated intent to kill amidst a sudden quarrel, justifying a conviction under Section 30....
cCnduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased.
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident.
The court emphasized that all members of an unlawful assembly may be held liable for murder, reaffirming the interpretation of common intention under Section 149 IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.