LAL MOHAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accusedappellant, 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.

(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'.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that PW-3 is not an eye witness at all, especially looking to para-12 of her deposition, moreover, she is interested witness. There are major omissions and contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that though PW-5 has narrated statement made by the appellant-accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is a confession of this appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deposition of PW-5 is of no help to the prosecution. It is also submitted that looking to the deposition of PW-9 it appears that there is an extra judicial confession by this appellant-accused, but, it is not appreciated by the trial court that he was in custody and any confession made by the appellant during his custody is of no help to the prosecution. These aspects of the matter is not properly appreciated by the learned trial court. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that looking to the deposition of prosecution witnesses this appellant was a mad person and hence he was not knowing what he was doing nor he was knowing the consequences of his act. This aspect of the mater has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside.