Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Madan Mohan Mahto vs. State of Jharkhand (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 07 February 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can the Supreme Court overturn a conviction when lower courts have agreed on the facts of a murder case? This question was at the heart of a recent judgment where the Supreme Court of India examined whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on sound evidence. The case involved Madan Mohan Mahto and Jagmohan Mahto, who were convicted for the murder of Jitu Mahto. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere with the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Jitu Mahto on 19 November 1985. The prosecution’s case was that on the day of the incident, Jitu Mahto, along with Kuila Mahto (informant), Butru Mahto, and Jagran Mahto, were harvesting paddy in their field. At around noon, four individuals—Madan Mohan Mahto, Jagmohan Mahto, Charka Mahto, and Bihari Mahto—arrived at the field armed with weapons. Madan Mohan Mahto fired three gunshots, causing the others to flee except Jitu Mahto. Jagmohan Mahto then attacked Jitu Mahto with a Tangi, cutting his right palm, while Bihari Mahto and Charka Mahto hit him on the head with stones, resulting in his death at the scene.

Kuila Mahto, the informant, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 20 November 1985, detailing the incident and naming all four accused. The police investigated, recorded statements, and filed a charge sheet. The case proceeded to the Sessions Court, where all four accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed their appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all four accused based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, which included the testimonies of six witnesses. The accused denied their involvement during their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s decision. Subsequently, the accused filed appeals before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeals, two of the accused, Charka Mahto and Bihari Mahto, passed away, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. The Supreme Court then heard the appeals of the remaining two accused, Madan Mohan Mahto and Jagmohan Mahto.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that there were contradictions in the evidence presented by the eyewitnesses. They contended that the testimonies of Jagran Mahto (PW-1) and Kuila Mahto (PW-2) were inconsistent and unreliable.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent on material aspects such as the identity of the accused, the manner of the assault, and the weapons used. The prosecution also highlighted that the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The prosecution contended that the accused persons shared a common intention to attack the victims, as they came armed with weapons.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the two courts below are perverse or recorded without any evidence or by misreading or ignoring the material evidence?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• Lachman Singh vs. State (AIR 1952 SC 167) – The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to reassess evidence unless the lower courts’ findings are perverse.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and credible eyewitness testimonies of Jagran Mahto (PW-1) and Kuila Mahto (PW-2). These witnesses provided a clear account of the incident, identifying the accused and detailing their respective roles in the murder of Jitu Mahto. The Court also noted that the medical evidence provided by the doctor (PW-3) corroborated the eyewitness accounts, confirming the injuries and the weapons used. The fact that the incident occurred in broad daylight and that there was a known rivalry between the parties further strengthened the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that it would not reassess the evidence unless there was a clear perversity or misreading of evidence by the lower courts, which was not found in this case.

The Supreme Court observed, “At the outset, we consider it apposite to state that when the two Courts below in their respective jurisdiction have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, then this Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to appreciate the evidence afresh unless the appellants are able to point out that the concurrent finding of two Courts below is wholly perverse or is recorded without any evidence or is recorded by misreading or ignoring the material evidence.”

The Court further stated, “Both these witnesses, in categorical terms, maintained their version in their respective statements that the appellant-Madan Mohan Mahto fired the gunshot and the appellant-Jagmohan Mahto hit with a Tangi on the right palm of Jitu Mahto and other two accused, namely, Bihari Mahto and Charka Mahto, who are now dead, hit on head of Jitu Mahto with stone. There was neither any contradiction nor any inconsistency in their statements on material version such as on the question of identity of the accused, who hit, where the assault was made and who fired.”

The Court concluded, “We are unable to notice any kind of infirmity, illegality or perversity in the approach of the two Courts below while holding that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court will not reassess evidence when lower courts have already done so, unless there is a clear perversity or misreading of evidence.
• Consistent eyewitness testimonies, corroborated by medical evidence, are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
• The principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be applied when multiple individuals act together with a shared objective.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts unless there is a clear perversity, misreading, or ignoring of material evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court’s role is not to reassess evidence already appreciated by the lower courts, but to ensure that the lower courts have acted within their jurisdiction and in accordance with the law. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Madan Mohan Mahto and Jagmohan Mahto, upholding their conviction for the murder of Jitu Mahto. The Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants, emphasizing the consistency of the eyewitness testimonies and the corroborating medical evidence. The judgment underscores the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless there is a clear perversity or misreading of evidence.