{"id":101164,"date":"2010-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010"},"modified":"2014-07-22T03:06:03","modified_gmt":"2014-07-21T21:36:03","slug":"rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Dharnidhar Jha<\/div>\n
                                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.156 of 1988\n                                             WITH\n                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.98 of 1998\n\n                       Against the judgment of conviction and order of\n                       sentence dated 11th February, 1988 passed by 6th\n                       Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions\n                       Case No.324\/83.\n\n                                 Cr.Appeal No.156 of 1988\n\n                   RIT LAL MAHTO------------------------Appellant\n                                         Versus\n                   STATE OF BIHAR----------------------Respondent\n\n                                 CR. APP (DB) No.98 of 1988\n           1.    BHOLA MAHTO\n           2.    PARMESHWAR MAHTO\n           3.    LUKHAR MAHTO &\n           4.    JHUPAR MAHTO--------------------------Appellants\n                                          Versus\n                STATE OF BIHAR------------------------Respondent\n                                          ------\n                       For the appellants:-Sri Farooque Ahmad Khan\n                                           Sri Indu Bhushan Prasad,Advocates\n                                           (in Cr.Appeal No.98 of 1988)\n                      For the appellant:- Sri Rakesh Kumar Sinha No.1\n                                           Sri Anuj Prakash,Advocates\n                                           (in Cr.Appeal No.156 of 1988)\n                      For the State:-       Sushri Shashi Bala Verma,A.P.P.\n\n                                             P R E S E N T\n\n                           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA\n                          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA\n\n\n  Dharnidhar Jha &                     Six accused persons were put on trial by the\nAkhilesh Chandra,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                            learned    6th    Additional     Sessions     Judge,    Munger     in<\/p>\n
                            Sessions Trial No.324 of 1983. They had been charged<\/p>\n
                            together    under     Sections    302   and    149     of   the   IPC<\/p>\n
                            except     acquitted    accused      Dwarika    Mahto       who   was<\/p>\n
                            charged    under    Section    302   read     with   120B    of   the<\/p>\n
                            Penal Code. The appellant Rit Lal Mahto was also
\n                              -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
separately charged under Section 302 of the Penal<\/p>\n
Code. The learned trial Judge while delivering the<\/p>\n
judgement         on    the        11th   of    February,1988         acquitted<\/p>\n
accused Dwarika Mahto of the charges framed against<\/p>\n
him and found the five appellants of the two appeals<\/p>\n
guilty. Appellant Rit Lal Mahto was found guilty of<\/p>\n
committing offence under Section 302 of the Penal<\/p>\n
Code        and        was     directed           to      suffer          rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment           for     life.       The    two     appellants         Bhola<\/p>\n
Mahto and Parmeshwar Mahto-appeal of Jhupar Mahto<\/p>\n
and    Lukhar       Mahto      having          abated-were        convicted     of<\/p>\n
offence under Sections 302 and 149 of the Penal Code<\/p>\n
and each of them was                      directed to suffer rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment            for        life.        The    two        appeals     were<\/p>\n
preferred by them for challenging the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentences inflicted upon each of them.<\/p>\n
            2. We have heard the two appeals together<\/p>\n
and    we     are       disposing          of     them    by       this     common<\/p>\n
judgement.\n<\/p>\n
            3. P.W.8 Most. Paitri Devi, who happened to<\/p>\n
be the wife of the deceased Lakhan Mahto, gave her<\/p>\n
fardbeyan to the officer-in-charge of Chakai police<\/p>\n
station      stating          that        she    and     her      husband    were<\/p>\n
sleeping outside their house by the side of the wall<\/p>\n
on    two    separate          cots.       The    wife       of    the    younger
\n                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
brother         of       the         deceased,               namely,         Kaili<\/p>\n
Devi(P.W.2)was         also      sleeping         with       her   child         just<\/p>\n
near by. When it was about mid-night and when the<\/p>\n
moon had come out, she woke up on picking up the<\/p>\n
sound of arrival of some persons and found the eight<\/p>\n
accused      persons      named       in    the    FIR       there     who       were<\/p>\n
armed with lathi, farsa and tangi. They all came<\/p>\n
near   the      deceased       who    was    sleeping.          P.W.8      stated<\/p>\n
that   accused        Jhupar      Mahto      and        Lukhar       Mahto(died<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the trial) were armed with<\/p>\n
farsa, whereas appellant Rit Lal Mahto had a tangi<\/p>\n
in his hand. Other accused persons were armed with<\/p>\n
lathi.\n<\/p>\n
            4. P.W.8 specifically alleged that appellant<\/p>\n
Rit Lal Mahto gave a blow with tangi on the left<\/p>\n
temporal        region     of     the       deceased          while     he        was<\/p>\n
sleeping on the cot as a result of which he wreathed<\/p>\n
in   pain     and     died      instantaneously.               Other       accused<\/p>\n
persons, thereafter, started dragging out the dead<\/p>\n
body   of    her      husband.       The    informant          raised        a    cry<\/p>\n
imploring       the    people        of    village       to     come       as     the<\/p>\n
accused     persons       were       attempting         to    take     away       the<\/p>\n
dead     body    of      her     husband.         The    cries        of     P.W.8<\/p>\n
attracted       Sukho     Mahto(P.W.8),            Sarju       Mahto(P.W.1),<\/p>\n
Kaili Devi(P.W.2), Mahadeo Mahto(P.W.5) and others
\n                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
upon which the accused persons fled away leaving the<\/p>\n
dead body of her husband. The informant claimed that<\/p>\n
the    witnesses     had     seen    the    occurrence      and    had<\/p>\n
identified the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
           5. As regards the motive for commission of<\/p>\n
the offence it was stated by P.W.8 that about four<\/p>\n
days prior to the date of occurrence there had been<\/p>\n
some     quarrel     between    the    deceased      and      accused<\/p>\n
Dwarika Mahto and during that course Dwarika Mahto<\/p>\n
had given out that he will behead the deceased and<\/p>\n
it was why the husband of P.W.8 had been murdered.<\/p>\n
           6. The investigating officer of the case has<\/p>\n
not been examined. As such, we do not know as to how<\/p>\n
the investigation proceeded, but this much appears<\/p>\n
clear that on the basis of Ext-2, the fardbeyan of<\/p>\n
P.W.8,    FIR   of   the     case,   Ext-4    was   drawn     up    and<\/p>\n
inquest    report     was    also    prepared,      after     holding<\/p>\n
inquest on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 Dr.<\/p>\n
Narendra    Mohan     Sharma    appears      holding     postmortem<\/p>\n
examination     on    the    dead    body    and    preparing      the<\/p>\n
report in that behalf which was marked Ext-3 during<\/p>\n
trial.    The   witnesses      who   have    been   examined       must<\/p>\n
have been cited as a chargesheet witnesses and might<\/p>\n
have been questioned by the investigating officer<\/p>\n
before     closure      of     investigation.          From       these
\n                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
documents, we could gather that materials had been<\/p>\n
found sufficient for putting the accused persons up<\/p>\n
on trial.\n<\/p>\n
          7. The defence of appellants was of false<\/p>\n
implication on account of the dispute for land in<\/p>\n
between accused Dwarika Mahto, who was the father of<\/p>\n
appellant Rit Lal Mahto and who was acquitted by the<\/p>\n
learned     trial     Judge.    The        other   appellants    of<\/p>\n
Cr.Appeal no.98 of 1988 pleaded false implication<\/p>\n
for reasons best known to the informant.<\/p>\n
          8. The prosecution examined a total number<\/p>\n
of ten witnesses in support of the charges, out of<\/p>\n
whom P.W.5 Mahadeo Mahto was declared hostile though<\/p>\n
the witness appears stating one important fact in<\/p>\n
his examination-in-chief that when he reached at the<\/p>\n
scene of occurrence, the wife of Lakhan Mahto, i.e.,<\/p>\n
P.W.8 stated to him that appellant Rit Lal Mahto,<\/p>\n
Jhupar Mahto(since dead)and                2-4 other persons had<\/p>\n
murdered her husband Lakhan Mahto by a tangi. P.W.7<\/p>\n
Angrej    Mahto     was    tendered    for      cross-examination.<\/p>\n
P.W.10 Suresh Prasad was a witness of formal nature<\/p>\n
who   proved   the    writings        of    a   particular   police<\/p>\n
officer appearing on the FIR and this is how that<\/p>\n
document was marked Ext-4. Other witnesses who also<\/p>\n
fall in the same category of formal character was
\n                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
P.W.6 Bhuneshwar Mahto who had signed the fardbeyan<\/p>\n
as   a   witness   to     it     besides   signing    the   inquest<\/p>\n
report too.\n<\/p>\n
          9. Out of remaining witnesses, except P.W.8<\/p>\n
Paitri    Devi,    none    of     the   witnesses,    like,   P.W.1<\/p>\n
Sarju Mahto, P.W.2 Kaili Devi and P.W.4 Sukho Mahto<\/p>\n
were witnesses to the real part of the occurrence<\/p>\n
and they stated that when they reached the scene of<\/p>\n
occurrence, they found appellant Rit Lal Mahto and<\/p>\n
accused Jhupar Mahto(since dead) dragging the dead<\/p>\n
body in an attempt to take it away. P.W.5 as just<\/p>\n
pointed out did not state the above facts though<\/p>\n
stated that P.W.8 had stated to him that it was Rit<\/p>\n
Lal Mahto and others who had killed her husband. The<\/p>\n
other witnesses like P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 have stated<\/p>\n
that when they reached they also learnt from P.W.8<\/p>\n
that it was appellant Rit Lal Mahto who had killed<\/p>\n
her husband with a Kulhari.\n<\/p>\n
          10. While criticizing the judgments of the<\/p>\n
learned lower court, it was contended by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel    appearing      for     appellants   Bhola    Mahto    and<\/p>\n
Parmeshwar    Mahto       that    except   P.W.8     none   of   the<\/p>\n
witnesses like P.Ws 1, 2, 4 or 5 has stated that he<\/p>\n
had seen any of the two appellants even dragging<\/p>\n
away the dead body. It was contended that only P.W.8
\n                          -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
stated    that     the    accused     persons     started   dragging<\/p>\n
away the dead body so as to taking it away but her<\/p>\n
evidence in paragraph 1 at page 28 of the paper book<\/p>\n
is   also    not   specific      as    she   does    not    name    any<\/p>\n
particular accused             in that connection and simply<\/p>\n
implicated the accused persons generally. It was,<\/p>\n
contended as such, that the two appellants, namely,<\/p>\n
Bhola    Mahto     and    Parmeshwar     Mahto     deserved    to    be<\/p>\n
acquitted on account of not being named by any of<\/p>\n
the witnesses as           persons who had attempted to take<\/p>\n
away the dead body by dragging it.\n<\/p>\n
            11. As regards Rit Lal Mahto, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing on his behalf contended that his<\/p>\n
implication is by the evidence of solitary witness<\/p>\n
P.W.8 and when the court considered her evidence in<\/p>\n
paragraph 5 at page 29 of the paper book, what it<\/p>\n
could find is that she woke up after hearing the<\/p>\n
cries of her husband and, as such, she may not be an<\/p>\n
eye witness to the assault part of occurrence. It<\/p>\n
was further contended that the other witnesses did<\/p>\n
not implicate the appellant Rit Lal Mahto by stating<\/p>\n
that any of them had seen him giving the decisive<\/p>\n
blow so as to killing the deceased Lakhan Mahto. It<\/p>\n
was,     lastly,    contended       that     it   was   a   case     of<\/p>\n
solitary blow and it may not be a case under Section
\n                       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
302 of the Penal Code and the facts may attract the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 304 part II IPC.<\/p>\n
          12. Sushri Shashi Bala Verma, the learned<\/p>\n
Additional      Public      Prosecutor,      has    contested        the<\/p>\n
contentions as regards the proof of charge against<\/p>\n
appellant Rit Lal Mahto by submitting that the FIR<\/p>\n
recites that the blow was given with full force.<\/p>\n
P.W.8 supports her allegation contained in Ext-2 by<\/p>\n
stating in her examination-in-chief as also in her<\/p>\n
cross-examination that it was only appellant Rit Lal<\/p>\n
Mahto who had assaulted her husband by a tangi and<\/p>\n
the doctor who held the postmortem examination found<\/p>\n
the    corresponding        injury   which   was    the      cause   of<\/p>\n
death. It was contended that the appellant Rit Lal<\/p>\n
Mahto had the intention to kill the deceased and<\/p>\n
that    could    be   gathered       from    many    circumstances<\/p>\n
attending upon the facts of the case. Sushri Verma<\/p>\n
submitted    that     it     could   never    be    a   case    under<\/p>\n
Section 304 part II Penal Code and it could be out<\/p>\n
and out an offence under Section 302 IPC.<\/p>\n
          13. The case of the prosecution is confined<\/p>\n
to the solitary eye witness P.W.8 Paitri Devi who at<\/p>\n
the relevant time was the wife of the deceased. She<\/p>\n
appears having married another man after her husband<\/p>\n
was    killed   by    the     accused   persons,        as   per     her
\n                            -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
allegation. The fact that she married another man is<\/p>\n
stated by P.W.2 Kaili Devi also who happens to be<\/p>\n
the    wife    of     the    younger      brother        of    the    deceased<\/p>\n
Lakhan Mahto and who could very well be supposed to<\/p>\n
know the subsequent events which could have occurred<\/p>\n
after murder of Lakhan Mahto. We are not concerned<\/p>\n
much    about       that    evidence      of      P.W.8.      What     we      find<\/p>\n
after considering the evidence of P.W.8 is that she<\/p>\n
personally          did     not   have      any    reason        to       falsely<\/p>\n
implicate any person in a charge of murdering her<\/p>\n
husband. Nothing was brought on the record of the<\/p>\n
case    by    cross-examining          P.W.8       or    any    of     the     ten<\/p>\n
witnesses      to     indicate       that    P.W.8       could       be    deeply<\/p>\n
motivated or interested in seeing that the charge<\/p>\n
framed against appellant Rit Lal Mahto or against<\/p>\n
any    of     the    accused        persons         be     proved         by   her<\/p>\n
evidence on account of any particular reason. The<\/p>\n
fairness of the witness could be gathered from one<\/p>\n
line of her evidence in paragraph 6, which is the<\/p>\n
cross-examination            part    of     the    evidence       of       P.W.8,<\/p>\n
when she stated that her husband was assaulted only<\/p>\n
by Rit Lal Mahto and by none of the other accused.<\/p>\n
She further stated that the other accused persons<\/p>\n
were simply standing near the place of occurrence.<\/p>\n
This single line of evidence of P.W.8 brings the\n<\/p>\n
                         – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
quality of the witness to such a standard as not be<\/p>\n
said   to    be   tainted        by    any    particular     reason.    No<\/p>\n
witness      could be as fair as we find P.W.8 to be.<\/p>\n
For this reason, we place our implicit faith on the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.8.\n<\/p>\n
            14. It is true that P.W.8 has stated that<\/p>\n
all accused persons came together and some of them<\/p>\n
were armed with some weapons also, but when we read<\/p>\n
the evidence of P.W.8 in her examination-in-chief in<\/p>\n
paragraph-1,        what         we    find     is    that     she     had<\/p>\n
generalized the allegation by giving a general type<\/p>\n
of evidence that after Rit Lal Mahto had given a<\/p>\n
blow with tangi so as to cutting and killing Lakhan<\/p>\n
Mahto, the accused persons started dragging away the<\/p>\n
dead   body.      She     had    not    specified     any    particular<\/p>\n
accused who was catching hold of the deceased so as<\/p>\n
to dragging him away. This part of the story appears<\/p>\n
narrated by other witnesses like P.Ws.1, 2 and 4<\/p>\n
each of whom has stated that when he or she reached<\/p>\n
at   the    scene   of      occurrence        after   picking   up     the<\/p>\n
cries of the lady, they found two accused, namely,<\/p>\n
Rit Lal Mahto and accused Jhupar Mahto(since dead)<\/p>\n
dragging the dead body so as to taking it away. None<\/p>\n
of them stated that they had seen any other accused<\/p>\n
persons except the above two even standing or moving\n<\/p>\n
                            – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
along with the above two                         on or about the scene of<\/p>\n
occurrence. What they have further stated is that<\/p>\n
they heard P.W.8 stating that it was appellant Rit<\/p>\n
Lal Mahto who had killed the deceased with a tangi.<\/p>\n
Thus,     we      find      that          the     complicity        of    the   two<\/p>\n
appellants, namely, Bhola Mahto and Parmeshwar Mahto<\/p>\n
in dragging away the dead body of Lakhan Mahto after<\/p>\n
he    had      been      killed,              appears     not      properly      and<\/p>\n
satisfactorily established.\n<\/p>\n
            15.      Besides            the     evidence      of   P.W.8     Paitri<\/p>\n
Devi, witnesses like P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and even 5-who was<\/p>\n
declared hostile-have stated that P.W.8 was stating<\/p>\n
that it was appellant Rit Lal Mahto who had killed<\/p>\n
her   husband         with          a    weapon        like   tangi.       We   have<\/p>\n
consulted         the      provisions             of     Section     6     of   the<\/p>\n
Evidence       Act      which           makes    the    evidence     of    hearsay<\/p>\n
admissible            under              a       particular          exceptional<\/p>\n
circumstance          as     is         stated    to     by   that       particular<\/p>\n
provision of Evidence Act. That provision reads as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
                   Relevancy of facts forming part
\n               of same transaction.-Facts which,
\n               though   not   in   issue,  are   so
\n               connected with a fact in issue as to
\n               form part of the same transaction,
\n               are relevant, whether they occurred
\n               at the same time and place or at
\n               different times and places.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            For the purposes of the present discussion\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        – 12 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
we also want to refer to illustrations A appended to<\/p>\n
Section 6 which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             A is accused of the murder of B by
\n           beating him. Whatever was said or done
\n           by A or B or the by-standers at the
\n           beating, or so shortly before or after
\n           it as to form part of the transaction,
\n           is a relevant fact.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           16.    On    a       composite     reading   of     the    main<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 6 read with illustrations A of<\/p>\n
the Evidence Act what may transpire is that any word<\/p>\n
which was spoken by either the deceased or any one<\/p>\n
who could be present at the place of occurrence when<\/p>\n
the occurrence was being committed may be a relevant<\/p>\n
fact. We could admit the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4<\/p>\n
and 5 under Section 6 of the Evidence Act when they<\/p>\n
stated     that    P.W.8         was    giving    out   that    it     was<\/p>\n
appellant Rit Lal Mahto who had killed her husband<\/p>\n
with   a   tangi\/Kulhari.              The   evidence   of   the     other<\/p>\n
witnesses lends corroboration to evidence of P.W.8<\/p>\n
and we find that the complicity of Rit Lal Mahto was<\/p>\n
established beyond doubt.\n<\/p>\n
           17. This brings us to consider as to what<\/p>\n
offence could be constituted under the facts of the<\/p>\n
case. The allegation is that Rit Lal Mahto dealt a<\/p>\n
forceful blow with tangi on the left temporal region<\/p>\n
of the deceased. This statement appears in the FIR<\/p>\n
but we are not concerned much about that as we have\n<\/p>\n
                      – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
the evidence of P.W.8 before us and she has stated<\/p>\n
that the appellant Rit Lal Mahto dealt a tangi blow<\/p>\n
on a temple of her husband and killed her. P.W.9 Dr.<\/p>\n
Narendra     Mohan     Sharma    who     held   the     postmortem<\/p>\n
examination on the dead body of Lakhan Mahto found<\/p>\n
an incised wound on the left side of the face in<\/p>\n
front of left ear. It was above and down- words<\/p>\n
measuring    4   \u00bd”x1″x       bone,   cutting   left     parietal,<\/p>\n
temporal and upper part of mandible. We also find<\/p>\n
after   perusing      the     original     document     which   was<\/p>\n
marked Ext-3 that the meninges of the brain had also<\/p>\n
been damaged on account of the above blow and the<\/p>\n
above injury was the cause of death which was caused<\/p>\n
by   heavy   sharp     cutting    weapon    like   an    axe.   The<\/p>\n
evidence of doctor could, thus, give a clear picture<\/p>\n
as to how heavy was the blow which was wielded by<\/p>\n
appellant Rit Lal Mahto. While deciding to give the<\/p>\n
blow, the appellant appears chosing one of the most<\/p>\n
vital parts of the human body. Not only that, for<\/p>\n
committing the offence the appellant has also chosen<\/p>\n
the most unearthly hour of the day, i.e., the mid-<\/p>\n
might when few souls could be awoke. This may give<\/p>\n
an inkling as to the intent and knowledge of the man<\/p>\n
who was wielding the blow. He did not want any one<\/p>\n
to be a witness of the occurrence. He                   wanted his\n<\/p>\n
                        – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
blow to be so decisive, as not to leave any chance<\/p>\n
for the deceased to survive<\/p>\n
          18.          Considering             these       circumstances<\/p>\n
together, we could not reach any other conclusion<\/p>\n
than    that     the   appellant         was    moving     with   a     clear<\/p>\n
intention that he had to kill the deceased Lakhan<\/p>\n
Mahto. The evidence of P.W.8 indicates that after<\/p>\n
the blow had been given by the appellant Rit Lal<\/p>\n
Mahto,    the     deceased        died     instantaneously         on     the<\/p>\n
spot.\n<\/p>\n
          19. Considering these aspects of the matter,<\/p>\n
we are of the view that it could not be any other<\/p>\n
offence        than    the       offence        of     murder     and     the<\/p>\n
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
that the case could be one under Section 304 part II<\/p>\n
of the IPC appears to us not acceptable.<\/p>\n
          20.     After         having    discussed        the    evidence<\/p>\n
available to us on the record of the case, we find<\/p>\n
that     the     appeal      of    appellant         Bhola      Mahto     and<\/p>\n
Parmeshwar Mahto has to be allowed on account of<\/p>\n
extending the benefit of doubt to the above named<\/p>\n
two appellants. As regards appellant Rit Lal Mahto<\/p>\n
his conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code<\/p>\n
appears        properly      recorded          and   we,     accordingly,<\/p>\n
dismiss his appeal, i.e., Cr.Appeal no.156 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 15 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                      21. Cr.Appeal No.98 of 1988 is allowed in<\/p>\n
              the light of the above findings. Appellant Rit Lal<\/p>\n
              Mahto is on bail on account of being granted the<\/p>\n
              privilege    by     order       dated   3.5.1989       passed    in<\/p>\n
              Cr.Appeal    No.156      of    1988.    His     bail   bonds    are<\/p>\n
              cancelled.    He    shall      surrender   to    serve   out    his<\/p>\n
              sentence.    As    regards      appellants    Bhola    Mahto    and<\/p>\n
              Parmeshwar Mahto, they shall stand discharged from<\/p>\n
              the liabilities of their respective bail bonds on<\/p>\n
              account of being acquitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )<\/p>\n
                                           ( Akhilesh Chandra,J. )
\n Patna High Court,
\nDated, the 29th of
\n    March,2010,
\nBrajesh Kumar\/NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010 Author: Dharnidhar Jha CRIMINAL APPEAL No.156 of 1988 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.98 of 1998 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th February, 1988 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No.324\/83. Cr.Appeal No.156 of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-21T21:36:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-21T21:36:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3007,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-21T21:36:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-21T21:36:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-21T21:36:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010"},"wordCount":3007,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010","name":"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-21T21:36:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rit-lal-mahto-vs-state-of-bihar-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rit Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}