Subhash Mahto vs The State Of Bihar

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2015

SUBHASH MAHTO ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R.BANUMATHI,J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved

by the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court

confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC

and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.

2. On 01.10.1988 at about 10.00 p.m. the complainant

-Suresh Kumar while proceeding towards his home took deceased

Ramanand Mahto on the scooter along with Ram Briksh Mahto. All

of them proceeded to their house. At about 10.30 p.m. to 11.45

p.m., when they reached in front of the tea stall of Lalan

Mahto situated at Begampur Mandai Mohalla, accused -

Ramachandra Gareri and his father Lachhu Gareri started

attacking deceased Ramanand Mahto with Bhujali and Dab Signature Not Verified

respectively. The appellant - Subhash Mahto and others namely, Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.09.26 16:54:29 IST Reason:

Asmani Mahto, Rishi Mahto, Uma Nath Mahto, Subhash Mahto,

Rameshwar Mahto, Bijendra Mahto, Ramroop Mahto, Dukhit Mahto 2

are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased- Ramanand

Mahto and, thereafter, Lachhu Gareri and Ramchandra Gareri

chopped the head of the deceased by their weapons. On seeing

PW-2 (Ram Briksh Mahto) and PW-1 (Santosh Kumar) coming to the

spot of occurrence. The accused persons dragged the headless

body and threw nearby ditch. The appellant-accused viz.

Subhash Mahto is said to have packed the severed head in a

plastic bag and ran away with the accused - Ramachandra

Gareri.

3. Based upon evidence of eye witnesses Suresh Kumar (PW-

5) and Ram Brikesh Mahto (PW-2), the Trial Court convicted

Ramachandra Gareri and Lachhu Gareri under Section 302 IPC and

others under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under

Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life

imprisonment. In appeal, the High Court gave benefit of doubt

to Anant Lal Mahto, Rishi Mahto and Asmani Mahto and confirmed

the conviction of the other accused.

4. We have heard Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned amicus

appointed through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

and Ms. Abha R. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-

state and also perused the impugned judgment and materials on

record.

5. The overt-act attributed to the appellant - Subhash

Mahto is that he caught hold of deceased- Ramanand Mahto and

that he put severed head of the deceased in a plastic bag and

ran away with the accused - Ramachandra Gareri. 3

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made

meticulous submission contending that the case of Subhash

Mahto stood on different footing than the other accused who

were alleged to have caught hold of the deceased and,

therefore, the case of the Subhash Mahto ought to have been

considered differently. In our view, the above contention of

the appellant does not merit acceptance. The name of the

appellant - Subhash Mahto and the overt-act attributed to him

that he caught hold of the deceased has been specifically

mentioned in the FIR.

7. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the

State has drawn our attention that the similarly situated

accused, namely, Mundrika Mahto, Uma Nath Mahto, Rameshwar

Mahto, Bijendra Mahto, Ramroop Mahto, Dukhit Mahto, Lachhu

Gareri and Ramachandra Gareri who also caught hold of the

deceased have preferred the appeal viz. Criminal Appeal No.701

of 1993 before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed by

this Court by a reasoned order. Learned counsel for the

appellant has submitted that Anant Lal Mahto, Rishi Mahto and

Asmani Mahto were acquitted by the High Court even though

specific overt-act were attributed to them and the appeal

preferred by the State of Bihar was dismissed for default by

this Court. It was further submitted that when one batch of

appeals preferred by one set of accused in which conviction

was confirmed and appeals preferred by another set of accused

similarly situated were allowed acquitting them, the Court

should lean in favour of the accused. We are not inclined to 4

accept the submissions since criminal appeal preferred by the

similarly situated accused was already dismissed by this

Court, as noted above.

8. In the result, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. We express our appreciation towards valuable

assistance rendered by Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned amicus

appearing for the appellant.

….......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [INDIRA BANERJEE] NEW DELHI 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2018