Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed two criminal appeals filed by Madan Mohan Mahto and Jagmohan Mahto, challenging their conviction and life sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Jitu Mahto. The incident occurred on 19 November 1985 at around noon when the deceased and others were harvesting paddy in their field. Four accused, including the appellants, arrived armed with a gun, Tangi, and stones. Madan Mohan Mahto fired gunshots causing three persons to flee, but Jitu Mahto was surrounded. Jagmohan Mahto cut his right palm with a Tangi, while the other two accused hit him on the head with stones, causing instantaneous death. The FIR was lodged the next morning by Kuila Mahto (PW2), an eyewitness. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including two eyewitnesses (PWs 1 and 2) and the doctor (PW3) who conducted the post-mortem. The Trial Court convicted all four accused, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. Two accused died during the pendency of appeals in the Supreme Court, leaving only the two appellants. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel, found no merit in the appeals. It noted that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on credible eyewitness testimony, which was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court held that there was no perversity or illegality in the findings, and that common intention under Section 34 IPC was clearly established as all accused came together with lethal weapons and jointly attacked the deceased. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the conviction and life sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302/34 IPC - Common Intention - The appellants were convicted for murder of Jitu Mahto based on eyewitness testimony of PWs 1 and 2, who consistently named all four accused and described the assault with Tangi, stone, and gunfire in broad daylight. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were not perverse and that common intention was established as all accused came armed together and attacked the deceased. (Paras 3-20) B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal under Article 136 - Scope of Interference - The Supreme Court reiterated that it would not reassess evidence in appeals under Article 136 unless the concurrent findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Citing Lachman Singh vs. State, the Court held that an argument on a point of fact that did not prevail with the courts below cannot avail the appellants. (Paras 14-15) C) Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility - The Court found no material contradiction in the statements of PWs 1 and 2 regarding identity of accused, manner of assault, and weapons used. Their testimony was corroborated by the post-mortem report (PW3) and the FIR lodged promptly. (Paras 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 302/34 IPC by the Trial Court and High Court suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the conviction and life sentence under Section 302/34 IPC.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of Article 136
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC
- Appreciation of eyewitness testimony
- Perversity standard
