Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. PATEL, AMITAV K. GUPTA, JJ.
Lal Mohan Mahto, son of Late Navin Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 317 of 2014
Decided On : 24-02-2018
MURDER - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - 84 - 164 - 1, 2, 5 - The court discussed the occurrence, the deposition of prosecution witnesses, medical evidence, and the legal principle of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found the appellant guilty of causing the murder of his wife based on the trustworthy and reliable witness testimony and medical evidence. The court also emphasized that the burden of proving unsoundness of mind lies with the accused and that the mere fact of abnormal behavior is not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on the testimony of witnesses and medical evidence. The defense argued that the appellant was a mad person and was not aware of his actions, but the court found no proof of unsoundness of mind.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of causing the murder of his wife based on the trustworthy and reliable witness testimony and medical evidence. The court emphasized that the burden of proving unsoundness of mind lies with the accused and that the mere fact of abnormal behavior is not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Penal Code.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was guilty of causing the murder of his wife and whether the defense of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code was applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proving unsoundness of mind lies with the accused and that the mere fact of abnormal behavior is not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for causing the murder of the deceased.
D.N. Patel, J.
This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant, being aggrieved and feeling dis-satisfied, by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2010 and 23.09.2010 respectively, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatshila, in connection with Sessions Trial No.99 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No.464 of 2003 arising out of Chakulia P.S. Case No.50 of 2003 whereby this appellant has been mainly punished for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of his wife and is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-and in case of default, five months' simple imprisonment.
Case of the prosecution:
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.2003 at 18.00 hrs the informant Tulsi Mahto (P.W-4) gave fardbeyan to police that today, at about 8-9 A.M. in the morning he had gone to field for cutting the grass, then Topti Mahto (aged about 8 years) who is the daughter of his nephew (Bhagina) came before him, raising alarm and told him that his father Lal Mohan Mahto had killed her mother Putul Mahto (deceased) by ‘KATARI’ (sharp cutting instrument) inside the house. Thereafter, informant alongwith villagers went there and saw Putul Mahto lying dead in the room and her head was cut away by sharp cutting weapon and blood was also found here and there. When informant again asked to Tapoti Mahto (PW-3) about the occurrence, then she told that there is a quarrel between her father and mother due to some house hold affairs and in anger her father Lal Mohan Mahto killed her mother by “KATARI’ and fled away. Thereafter informant alongwith villagers informed about the occurrence to Chowkidar and police. The informant claim that due to house hold quarrel, Lal Mohan Mahto had killed his wife Putul Mahto by ‘KATARI’.
Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution
| P.W-1 | Jhilati Mahto | She had seen the Lal Mohan Mahto carrying the head of Putul Mahto in his hand. |
| P.W-2 | Lakhan Mahto | He deposed that Lal Mohan Mahto had confessed before him that he had killed Putul Mahto. He has proved his signature in the seizure list of ‘KATARI’ and Tangi i.e marked as Ext.1. |
| P.W-3 | Tapoti Mahto (age about 9 years) | She is the daughter of deceased Putul Mahto and accused Lal Mohan Mahto. She is the Eye witness of the occurrence and has proved her signature in the statement recorded U/S 164 of Cr.P.C i.e marked as Ext.2. |
| P.W-4 | Tulsi Mahto | He is the informant of this case and is a Hearsay witness. |
| P.W-5 | Ajit Kumar Singh (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class) | He has proved the statement of Topti Mahto recorded U/s 164 of Cr.P.C i.e marked as Ext.2/1 and has also proved the signature of Ramesh Chandra Mahto (Translator) in the statement recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C i.e marked as Ext.2/2. |
| P.W-6 | Dandu Ram Mardi | He has proved the thumb impression of informant Tulsi Mahto in fardbeyan i.e marked as Ext.3 and has also proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e marked as Ext.3/1. |
| P.W-7 | Bhakto Prasad Mahato | He has proved his signature in the seizure list i.e marked as Ext.4. |
| P.W-8 | Gangadhar Mahato | He has proved his thumb impression in the seizure list. |
| P.W-9 | Kartik Mahato | He is the brother of deceased Putul Mahto. He has proved his signature in the seizure list of ‘KATARI’ i.e marked as Ext.1/1. |
| P.W-10 | Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary | He is a Doctor who has conducted the Post-mortem on the dead body of Putul Mahto @ Bhawani Mahto and has proved the Post-mortem report and his signature in the Post-mortem report i.e marked as Ext.5 and 5/1 respectively. |
Argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellant:
3. Learned counsel appearin
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
