Advocates:
R. P. GUPTAANIL KUMAR JHA

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 348 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Hari Mohan Mandal

RESPONDENT:

State of Jharkhand

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2004

BENCH:

DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3784/2003

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J

Leave granted.

Appellant along with four others faced trial for

alleged commission of offence punishable under Section

302, 302 read with Section 120B, 307, 302 read with

Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

the ’IPC’). The Trial Court found the appellant Hari

Mohan Mandal and two other accused persons Chandra

Mohan and Vijay to be guilty. Two others, namely,

Gajadhar Mandal and Rameswar Mahto were acquitted.

While Chandra Mohan was found guilty of offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC, accused-appellant

Hari Mohan Mandal and Vijay Mandal were found guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Each was

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

In appeal, a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High

Court dismissed the appeal so far as the accused

Chandra Mohan and present appellant are concerned, but

directed acquittal of the accused Vijay Mandal. The

sentence as imposed by the Trial Court was maintained

so far as the accused appellant is concerned.

Prosecution version as unfolded during trial in a

nutshell is as follows:

At about 6.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence i.e.

12.2.1994, the informant along with his uncles, Narayan

Mandal (hereinafter described as ’the deceased’) and

Janardhan Mandal (PW-1) had gone for husking the paddy

in the pounding mill of Sikandar Mahto, situated at

Godda Pirpaiti Pitch Road. After their arrival, the

three accused persons Chandra Mohan Mandal, Hari Mohan

Mandal and Vijay Mandal also went there. They had kept

their paddy bag at the Mill on the previous day. Both

the parties entered into an altercation regarding the

husking of their paddy first. The appellant, Hari Mohan

Mandal forcibly put his paddy into the hauler. When

deceased Narayan Mandal objected, all the accused

persons abused him and the accused Chandra Mohan Mandal

brought out a knife from his waist and gave 3-4 knife

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

blows on his abdomen. On being injured deceased Naryana

Mandal fell down. When Janardhan Mandal (PW-1) went to

rescue him, then the accused Hari Mohan Mandal took the

knife from Chandra Mohan Mandal and stabbed on his head

and eye. He also fell down on being injured. Accused

Vijay Mandal assaulted by throwing bricks hitting eye

of Janardhan Mandal (PW-1). The bricks thrown at the

informant Guddu Kumar (PW-5) by accused Vijay Mandal

did not hit him. Thereafter, all the accused person

fled away. Narayan Mandal died at the spot. The

injured, Janardhan Mandal (PW-1) was sent to Sadar

Hospital for treatment on a rickshaw. Rameshwar Mahto,

father of mill owner, Sikandar Mahto and Joginder Mahto

(PW-9) saw the alleged occurrence. On alarm, the

villagers assembled there. The informant (PW-5) put the

dead body of Narayan Mandal on a trolley with the help

of others. Fard beyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Guddu

Kumar Mandal (PW-5) was recorded by S.I., R.K.

Bharamchari (PW-11) Officer-in-charge, Godda P.S. on

12.2.1994 at 9.20 a.m. at the P.O. Village Punasia,

P.S. Godda Town. After investigation charge-sheet under

Sections 302, 307 IPC was submitted. Supplementary

charge-sheet under Sections 302, 307, 109/34 IPC was

submitted against Gajadhar Mandal and Rameshwar Mahto,

who were acquitted by the Trial Court.

In order to bring home the accusations 13

witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The Trial

Court found the evidence of injured A-1 and the

informant Guddu Kumar (PW-5) to be cogent and credible.

Placing reliance on their evidence, the Trial Court

found 3 accused persons guilty but found that the

prosecution has not established its case so