{"id":150369,"date":"2009-05-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-17T13:10:09","modified_gmt":"2015-10-17T07:40:09","slug":"purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                            Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2002\n                                         ---\n       Against the judgment dated 13th December, 2001, and sentenced\n       passed on 15.12.2001, passed by Sri William Minz, 1st Additional\n       Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Sessions Trial No.368 of 2000.\n                                      ------\n       Purushottam Mahto -------                                Appellant\n                                          -Versus-\n       The State of Jharkhand                  -------          Respondent.\n                                           --------\n       For the Appellant         :    Mr. H.K. Sikarwar, Advocate\n       For the State             :    Mr. Tapas Roy, Advocate\n       For the Informant         :    Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate\n\n                                       PRESENT\n                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR\n\nBy Court:         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the<\/pre>\n<p>       State as well as learned counsel for the informant.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  It appears that as the appeal is directed against the judgment dated<br \/>\n            th<br \/>\n       13        December, 2001, and sentenced passed on 15.12.2001, passed by<br \/>\n       Sri William Minz, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in<br \/>\n       Sessions Trial No.368 of 2000, by which judgment, the appellant<br \/>\n       Purushottam Mahto was found guilty under Section 304B of the Indian<br \/>\n       Penal Code and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for ten<br \/>\n       years.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  The prosecution case was started on the basis of the frad beyan<br \/>\n       given by P.W.1, informant, Jagdish Mahto on 13.1.2000 at about 4:30<br \/>\n       hours at Bishunghar police station, stating therein that his deceased sister,<br \/>\n       Manju Devi was married to accused Purushottam Mahto and as his elder<br \/>\n       brother Baijnath Mahto used to torture his sister for dowry and sometime<br \/>\n       also used to assault her. They never allowed her to visit his house and<br \/>\n       they were demanding Hero Honda Motor-cycle. Both the brothers had<br \/>\n       said that until and unless the Hero Honda Motor-cycle is given to them,<br \/>\n       they will not allow his sister to visit his house. It is stated subsequently<br \/>\n       that his brother-in-law Purushottam Mahto got employed at Jerangdih<br \/>\n       Colliery and his sister started living with him in block No.4, quarter No.6 in<br \/>\n       the Sabitri Colony. It is stated that when they visited Sabitri Colony, Block<br \/>\n       No.4, quarter No.6, his brother-in-law demanded motorcycle from him. It<br \/>\n       is alleged that on 12.1.2000, when his cousin brother Teju Mahto went to<br \/>\n       bring his sister, then Purushottam Mahto became furious and by giving leg<br \/>\n       blow upon his sister, whereupon his brother came back weeping to his<br \/>\n       house. It is alleged that, on that day in the morning, his elder brother-in-<br \/>\n       law Sushil Kumar informed him that his sister has been murdered and her<br \/>\n       dead body had been brought for cremating, whereupon they rushed to<br \/>\n       Govindpur and saw her dead body lying on the &#8216;varamda&#8217; of the house of<br \/>\n                                         2              Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002<\/p>\n<p>his brother-in-law who was making preparation for cremation and he came<br \/>\nto know that his sister has died due to strangulation and her dead body<br \/>\nhas been brought here, whereupon they took the dead body to the police<br \/>\nstation.     Purusottam had also come to the police station and on the<br \/>\nallegation that Purusottam Mahto and his brother Viduyat Mahto had<br \/>\ncommitted the murder of his sister for not bringing the motorcycle as<br \/>\ndowry. The case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 3\/4 of<br \/>\nthe Dowry Prohibition Act was registered by the police and after<br \/>\ninvestigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against both the accused<br \/>\npersons under Section 304B\/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under<br \/>\nSection 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3\/4 of the Dowry<br \/>\nProhibition Act. Since the case was triabled by Court of Sessions and the<br \/>\nsame was committed to the Sessions and subsequently the case was<br \/>\ntransferred to the court of first Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, where<br \/>\ncharges were framed. Both the accused persons were found guilty for the<br \/>\noffence under 304B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3\/4 of<br \/>\nthe Dowry Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>           It appears that in course of trial, seven prosecution witnesses were<br \/>\nexamined but since the prosecution failed to prove the charges under<br \/>\nSection 304B and 3\/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused<br \/>\nVidayut Mahot, hence he was acquitted from the charges and since the<br \/>\ncharges was not proved against this appellant and he was also acquitted<br \/>\nunder 3\/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>       It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that<br \/>\nprosecution has examined seven witnesses in course of trial and all are<br \/>\nrelated to the family of the deceased and none of them have supported<br \/>\nthe prosecution case since no dowry was demanded for the marriage or<br \/>\nthat the victim girl Manju Devi used to be tortured for dowry by the<br \/>\nappellant except the informant P.W.1. Even the statement of P.W.1 has<br \/>\nnot been supported by his brother.\n<\/p>\n<p>       It is important to note that the mother and the father were not<br \/>\nexamined in the case and as such, the prosecution case has become<br \/>\ndoubtful. Moreover non-examination of the doctor and the Investigating<br \/>\nOfficer has also caused prejudice to the prosecution and the prosecution<br \/>\ncase with regard to the death of the deceased. In that view of the matter,<br \/>\nthe appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against<br \/>\nhim.\n<\/p>\n<p>       On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has submitted<br \/>\nthat the informant P.W.1 has fully supported the prosecution case and in<br \/>\nhis cross-examination, he has stated the case is against the accused<br \/>\nperson. In that view of the matter, the single evidence of the victim is<br \/>\nsufficient and the trial court has rightly convicted him.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       3             Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002<\/p>\n<p>        After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find<br \/>\nthat the prosecution examined seven witnesses.            P.W.1 is Jagdish<br \/>\nMahato, informant, P.W.2 is Bholi Mahato, brother of the deceased, P.W.3<br \/>\nJamuna Mahato, another brother of the deceased, P.W.4 is Tejo Mahto,<br \/>\ncousin brother of the deceased, P.W.5 is Narayan Mahto, cousin brother<br \/>\nP.W.6 is Wakil Mahto and P.W.7 is Shambhu Mahto, he is also the cousin<br \/>\nbrother of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>        It is important to note that P.W.1, in his statement has fully<br \/>\nsupported the prosecution case as given by him in the first information<br \/>\nreport and he stated in court that the deceased sister Manju Devi was<br \/>\nmarried with the appellant Purushottam Mahto in the year 1994 and she<br \/>\nstarted living at her husband house, when the appellant got employment<br \/>\nat Bokaro Thermal Colliery, she started living in the quarter of Sabitari<br \/>\nColony, Block No.4, quarter No.6. He has stated that after two to four<br \/>\nmonths, he started demanding a Hero Honda Motorcycle.                 His sister<br \/>\ninformed about this to her father and also informed him. His father was<br \/>\nnot in a position to give him a Motorcycle and hence could not fulfil the<br \/>\nsame.    He stated that the non-fulfillment of the demand, he used to<br \/>\nassault Manju Devi and never allowed her to come to her father&#8217;s house.<br \/>\nHe also stated that on 12.1.2000, his cousin brother Tejo Mahto had gone<br \/>\nto the house of Manju Devi for bringing her back to her &#8216;Maike&#8217; but the<br \/>\nappellant Purushottam Mahto become furious and assaulted her in his<br \/>\npresence and also threw foot blow on her whereupon, Tejo Mahto came<br \/>\nback weeping and stated that unless motorcycle is given, he will not allow<br \/>\nManju Devi to go to her &#8216;maike&#8217;. He stated in para-6 on 13.1.2000, his<br \/>\nelder brother-in-law Sushil Kumar came to her &#8216;maike&#8217; on 9 A.M and<br \/>\nstated that Purushottam was going to Govindpur for cremation of the dead<br \/>\nbody, whereupon he ran and saw the dead body of Manju Devi. The<br \/>\naccused Purushottam Mahto stated to him that Manju Devi has committed<br \/>\nsuicide. He saw the dead body and found blue mark around her neck and<br \/>\ninjury on her back, then he took the dead body to the police station. The<br \/>\naccused Purushottam Mahto also went with them and on his statement,<br \/>\nthe case was registered. He identified his signature on the fradbeyan and<br \/>\nproved the same as exhibit-1.      He also proved the inquest report has<br \/>\nexhibit-2 and submitted that the dead body was sent for post mortem.\n<\/p>\n<p>        It is important to note that the statement given by the informant<br \/>\nP.W.1 has not been supported by his brothers, who were examined as<br \/>\nP.W.2 to 7 as stated earlier. The appellant stated that on 12.1.2000, his<br \/>\ncousin brother Tejo Mahto had visited the house of Manju Devi, where it is<br \/>\nalleged that the appellant Purushottam Mahto become furious and<br \/>\nassaulted Manju Devi and threw a foot blow on her, but this statement of<br \/>\nthis informant at para-3 in examination-in-chief has not been supported by<br \/>\n                                        4               Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002<\/p>\n<p>P.W.4 Tejo Mahto during his examination. P.W.4 was tendered for cross-<br \/>\nexamination. He stated that Manju Devi is his cousin sister and she never<br \/>\nmade any complaint against her husband in his presence that her<br \/>\nhusband assaulted or put any demand for dowry. He stated that police<br \/>\nnever examined him.       So the statement of P.W.1 at para-2 that Tejo<br \/>\nMahto visited to the house of his sister is not corroborated by the<br \/>\nstatement of P.W.4 Tego Mahto as stated. He stated that on 13.1.2000,<br \/>\nhis elder brother Sunil Kumar, informed that Purusottam Mahto, appellant<br \/>\nhas brought the dead body to Govindpur and is proceeding for cremation,<br \/>\nbut the said Sunil Kumar has not been examined in court and his<br \/>\nstatement can not be corroborated by any other evidence.              Moreover in<br \/>\npara-2 of his examination-in-chief, the informant, P.W.1 stated that the<br \/>\ndemand of motorcycle was firstly informed by Manju Devi to her father but<br \/>\nit is important to note that his father has not been examined by the police,<br \/>\nnor he was is examined in court to corroborate the statement given by the<br \/>\ninformant. As far as, other evidences are concerned, it is important to<br \/>\nnote that they have given contradictory statement to their elder brother,<br \/>\nP.W.1 and P.W.2, Bholi Mahto. Another brother of the deceased Manju<br \/>\nDevi stated in court that there was no demand of any dowry from the side<br \/>\nof his brother-in-law. He stated that whenever he visited his house and<br \/>\nmet his sister, he always found her happy and she made no complain<br \/>\nagainst her husband Purushottom Mahto. He never knew that Manju Devi<br \/>\nis being tortured by her husband.          He also stated that he could not<br \/>\nunderstand as to how his elder brother has filed this case against his<br \/>\nbrother-in-law. He stated that his statement was recorded by police. He<br \/>\ndid not say to police that his brother filed a case against his brother-in-law.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Another brother, P.W.3 Jammuna Mahto stated in para-3 and 4 that<br \/>\nhe never saw his sister and brother-in-law fighting.     It is important to note<br \/>\nthat P.W.5, another brother of the deceased, Narayan Mahto has stated<br \/>\nthat Manju Devi was his cousin sister and she was mentally disturbed.<br \/>\nShe committed suicide and there was no demand of dowry.\n<\/p>\n<p>       P.W.7, Shambhu Mahto seems to be an independent witness. He<br \/>\nhas stated that he knows Jagdish Mahto and his sister Manju Devi. He<br \/>\nheard that Manju Devi committed suicide by putting a rope on her neck.<br \/>\nHe has also stated in para-4, that there was no complain against her<br \/>\nhusband. Whenever, he met Manju, she made no complain about her<br \/>\nhusband.\n<\/p>\n<p>       After going through the prosecution case, I find that the evidence of<br \/>\nP.W.1 is not corroborated by any other witnesses, rather the very basis<br \/>\nthat before the occurrence on 12.1.2000, his brother Tejo Mahto visited to<br \/>\nthe house Manju Devi has not been supported by Tego Mahot in court.<br \/>\nHis allegation that there was demand of motorcycle has also not been<br \/>\n                                      5               Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002<\/p>\n<p>supported by his father and mother.       They did not come in court but<br \/>\nbrothers were examined in court. They have not supported him. They did<br \/>\nnot know, as to why his elder brother Jagdish Mahto lodged this case<br \/>\nagainst his brother-in-law Purushottam Mahto, who never assaulted his<br \/>\nsister or demand motorcycle.\n<\/p>\n<p>       It is important to note that although post mortem report, marked as<br \/>\nexhibit-3 but doctor was not examined. From the perusal of the post-<br \/>\nmortem report, it appears that she died due to Aphyxia caused by<br \/>\nhanging.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Although after the consideration of all the witnesses available on<br \/>\nrecord, a question arises that as to why the deceased committed suicide,<br \/>\nwhen there was no demand of dowry.           As per the evidences of her<br \/>\nbrothers, P.W.2 to 7, that there was no torture from the side of the<br \/>\naccused. It appears from the evidences of P.W.1 itself as he stated at<br \/>\npara-21 that his sister and her husband Purusottam Mahto were running<br \/>\n&#8216;Kitchripros&#8217; shop in the quarter itself and it was suggested to him in para-<br \/>\n24 that Purusottam Mahto asked Manju Devi to make arrangement for the<br \/>\nshop and then leave for her &#8216;Maike&#8217; whereupon she became sentimental<br \/>\nand in the absence of Purusottam Mahto, she committed suicide by<br \/>\nhanging herself.\n<\/p>\n<p>       As discussed above, since the statement of the informant is not<br \/>\nsupported by any family members of the deceased and since his statement<br \/>\ngiven in para-2 and 3 have been denied by P.W.4.                   In that view<br \/>\nof the matter, the prosecution case and the statement of P.W.1 is not free<br \/>\nfrom doubt .The informant lodged this case and also supported the same<br \/>\nin court but no one has supported him. In that view of the matter, the<br \/>\nallegation against the appellant has not been proved by the evidences<br \/>\nbeyond doubts and the benefit of doubt is being given to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>       As such the benefit of doubt is given to the appellant Purushottam<br \/>\nMahto and he is acquitted from the charges levelled under Section 304B of<br \/>\nthe Indian Penal Code and the judgment passed by first Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge, Bokaro dated 13.12.2001 is set-aside. The appellant is<br \/>\non bail and he is released from the bondage of bail bond.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                (Pradeep Kumar, J.)<\/p>\n<p>Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi<br \/>\n        th<br \/>\nDated-19 May, 2009<br \/>\nR.Kumar\/N.A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009 Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2002 &#8212; Against the judgment dated 13th December, 2001, and sentenced passed on 15.12.2001, passed by Sri William Minz, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Sessions Trial No.368 of 2000. &#8212;&#8212; Purushottam Mahto &#8212;&#8212;- Appellant -Versus- [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-17T07:40:09+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-17T07:40:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2221,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-17T07:40:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-17T07:40:09+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-17T07:40:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009"},"wordCount":2221,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009","name":"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-17T07:40:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushottam-mahto-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Purushottam Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/150369","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=150369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}