Jharkhand High Court
Mantu Mahto @ Mukesh Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2026
2026:JHHC:22962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 2065 of 2004
--------
1. Mantu Mahto @ Mukesh Mahto, Son of Ganesh Mahto,
2. Jhantu Mahto @ Naresh Mahto, Son of Ganesh Mahto,
All are residents of Jogidih Basti, P.O. -Tundu, P.S.-Baghmara
(Madhuban), Dist. Dhanbad … … Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent
——–
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
——–
For the Appellants :Mr. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
For the State :Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
——–
J UDGMENT
th
Dated: 04 August, 2026
By Court:-
1. It is pertinent to mention, at the very outset, that appeal preferred by
Ganesh Mahto stood abated vide order dated 10.06.2024 passed by
co-ordinate bench of this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the
State.
3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 13th December, 2004 passed
in S.T. No. 130 of 1999 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.
7th, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder, both the appellants have
been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months for the
offence under Section 323 of the IPC.
Factual Matrix
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 22.08.1998,
at about 4:30PM, a goat of informant was grazing at the ridge of
paddy crops land of accused persons. Upon this, the accused
Ganesh Mahto (since deceased) asked to the son of informant
2026:JHHC:22962
namely Lakhinder Mahto that his goat has been grazing the paddy
crop, then the son of the informant told that it is not true.
Thereafter, Ganesh Mahto (since deceased) pressed the neck of the
son of the informant and threw him on the earth and assaulted by
legs and fists. The wife of the informant came to rescue her son,
then, the accused Ganesh Mahto also assaulted her and on alarm,
the informant himself reached the place of occurrence and he asked
the accused Ganesh Mahto about the occurrence, thereupon,
Ganesh Mahto threatened the informant and went his house and
returned armed with Sword along with his two sons and gave a
sword blow on the head of the informant resulting injuries on his
head and both the appellants gave iron rod blow and stick blow
fitted with an axe. After sustaining injuries, the informant became
unconscious. Thereafter, the co-villagers assembled at the place of
occurrence and took the informant to his house and the matter was
reported to police and F.I.R. was lodged against the accused
persons.
5. On the basis of written report of the informant, Baghmara
(Madhuban) P.S. Case No. 221 of 1998 was registered for the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307 and 34 of the IPC.
After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 341,
323, 324, 307 and 34 of the IPC and after taking cognizance, the
case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.130 of
1999 was registered where charges under Section 323, 307 read
2
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 2065 of 2004
2026:JHHC:22962
with 34 of the IPC was framed against the accused persons which
was read over and explained in Hindi to which accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, apart from documentary evidence.
7. On the other hand, altogether 2 defence witnesses were also
examined by the prosecution, apart from documentary evidence.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants:-
8. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned
judgment has submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to
take into consideration the vital contradiction in the evidence of the
witnesses and benefit of doubt should have been given to the
appellants. It has further been submitted that the investigating
officer has also not been examined to prove the place of occurrence
which was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case
which caused great prejudice to the appellants. It has also been
submitted that there was a long standing land dispute between the
parties which has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,
which was not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court
and the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants.
In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the plea of first offence of convicts and no previous conviction
was taken and prayed before the learned trial Court to give benefit
of Section 3 or 4 of Probation of Offenders Act but learned trial
Court without recording any special reasons has declined to release
3
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 2065 of 2004
2026:JHHC:22962
them under Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence is of the
year 1998 and they have sufficiently been punished for their guilt,
hence, they may be released by giving benefit of Section 3 or 4 of
Submissions on behalf of the State
9. Learned APP has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellants and submitted that the learned trial Court has very
categorically and minutely examined the evidence available on
record and finding sufficient evidence has rightly convicted the
appellants. There is no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be
dismissed.
Analysis, reasons and decision
10.I have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the
light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.
11.From the anxious consideration of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses as well as defence witnesses, it appears that P.W.-5
Nirashi Devi, P.W.-4 Lakhinder Mahto and P.W.-7 Rasu Mahto
(informant) has stated that appellants have assaulted them which
also finds corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses and
medical report of injured, therefore, the learned trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellants.
12.In view of the above discussions and reasons, the conviction of the
appellants under Section 323 of the IPC is affirmed and
considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner, place
4
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 2065 of 2004
2026:JHHC:22962
and nature of offence committed by the appellants, their age,
character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the ends of justice
to extend the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act
of 1958, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment
as awarded by the learned trial court.
13.In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with
modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing
substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants by
learned Trial Court for the offence under Sections 323 of the IPC,
the appellants are hereby directed to be released after due
admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act
subject to condition that the appellants shall deposit Rs. 5,000/-
each as “Victim Compensation” which shall be deposited at the
time of appearing before the learned trial Court for the purpose of
“due admonition” and the same compensation amount shall be paid
to the victim of this case after proper identification.
14.Pending I.A.(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
15.Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent
back to the court concerned immediately for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
04.08.2026
Basant/
Uploaded on 05/08/2026
5
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 2065 of 2004
