{"id":189813,"date":"2006-01-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006"},"modified":"2018-11-05T17:10:56","modified_gmt":"2018-11-05T11:40:56","slug":"rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: P Naolekar<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  588 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRabindra Mahto & Anr.\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Jharkhand\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/01\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWITH
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2005
\nBalram Mahto\t\t\t\t\t               ————Appellant <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tVersus<\/p>\n
State of Jharkhand\t\t\t\t            ————Respondent<\/p>\n
WITH
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO31.. OF 2006
\n(Arising out of  S.L.P. (Crl.) NO. 2218 of 2005)<\/p>\n
Girish Chandra Mahto  @
\nGirish Mahto & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t  ————–Appellants<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tVersus<\/p>\n
State of  Jharkhnd\t\t\t\t           ————Respondent<\/p>\n
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2218 of 2005<\/p>\n
\tThe accused appellants were convicted and sentenced by the
\nAdditional Judicial Commissioner. The appellants Rabindra Mahto,
\nBalram Mahto and Lemboo Mahto were found guilty under Section 302
\nIPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and
\nto pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- and in default to further undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for two years.  The appellants Jag Mohan  Mahto, Fagu
\nMahto, Dhananjay Mahto, Huna Mahto and Girish Mahto were found
\nguilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and were
\naccordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor life and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- and in default to further undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for  one month.    Further appellants Jag Mohan
\nMahto  and Lemboo were found guilty under Section 323 IPC and were
\nconvicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five
\nmonths.  All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.  The
\nappeal preferred by the accused-appellants was dismissed by the High
\nCourt, aggrieved by the same, the present proceedings were taken  up
\nby the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution case, as narrated by the eye witness Gopal
\nPuran, PW-5  in fardbeyan  on 11.7.1989   at 8.30 P.M. before Sub-
\nInspector N.P. Singh of P.S. Jopno Puti Tola, is   that at about 9.00
\nA.M.  he had gone to his field lying in Jopno Puti Tola Kend Tand  with
\nSohrai  Puran, Ram Mohan Puran, Cheta Puran, and others.  They
\nsowed Gunja in the field and thereafter they were taking rest under the
\nKend Tree.  They saw that from the side of Jopno Village Balram
\nMahto, Rabindra Nath Mahto, Girish Mahto, Fagu Mahto, Huna Mahto,
\nDhananjay Mahto, Lemboo Mahto, Laloo Mahto, Jagmohan Mahto
\nalong with five-six  other persons, armed with tangi, lathi, farsa and
\nsword came to the spot and enquired from them as to why they  plowed
\nthe field, whereupon there was an exchange of hot words.  All of a
\nsudden Huna Mahto pelted stone on Sohrai Puran, the deceased, as a
\nresult of which Sohrai Puran fell down.  Balram  and Rabindra
\nassaulted Sohrai Puran and  also assaulted Ram Mohan Puran.
\nThereafter Jagmohan, Laloo, Lemboo, Fagu and others attacked Ram
\nMohan and Sohrai Puran with lathi, farsa and sword as a result of which
\nSohrai Puran and Ram Mohan Puran died.  Gopal Puran, PW-5 and
\nCheta Puran, PW-9 were also assaulted by lathi.  Thereafter they ran
\ntowards Village Puti Tola and raised alarm whereupon villagers came
\nto the spot  but before they could arrive, the accused fled away from the
\nscene of occurrence.  As mentioned above this fardbeyan was recorded
\non 11.7.1989 at 2030 Hrs. i.e. 8.30 P.M. and the FIR was registered at
\n10.00 A.M.  on 12.7.1989.  The copy of the FIR was sent to the
\nconcerned Magistrate on 13.7.1989.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Additional Judicial Commissioner and the High Court, on
\nthe basis of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, found
\nthat the prosecution  proved  beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
\nRabindra, Lemboo and Balram committed  the offence of murder of
\nSohrai Puran and Ram Mohan Puran and other appellants committed
\ncrime  in furtherance of their common object forming unlawful
\nassembly, which was formed to commit murder of the deceased persons
\nand attack on  the members present with them. On the basis of evidence
\nof eye-witness, as there was specific evidence of assault by accused
\nRabindra  Mahto,  Balram Mahto and Lemboo Mahto on  the deceased
\nwith  tangi, sword and  farsa, which was corroborated by the medical
\nevidence, they were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC
\nand other accused persons who assaulted the deceased with Lathi were
\nheld  guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
\nIndian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe post mortem report prepared by PW-7,  Dr. Niranjan Minz
\nfound the following injuries on deceased Sohrai Puran:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tIncised wounds:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\t8.3 cm x bone deep on the front part of
\nthe left side of the chest and adjoining left
\nshoulder cutting the soft tissues, under bones
\npartially and the first and the second ribs left
\nside completely;\n<\/p>\n
(b)     11×3 cm x cavity deep on the left
\ntempro parietal region of the head cutting the
\nleft external on the head cutting the left
\nexternal ear partially and cutting the left
\ntempro parictal bone completely and the
\nunderlying brain partially;\n<\/p>\n
(c)       4x1 = cm  x soft tissue on the right \narm medial side;\n\n(d)\t    8x4 cm x soft tissue on right chest \n<\/pre>\n
lateral side situated 3 cm below the right
\naxilla;\n<\/p>\n
(e)\t   6×2 cm  x bone  deep on the left
\nbottom upper part cutting the soft tissues and
\nthe underlying bone partially.\n<\/p>\n
2. Lacerated wounds:\n<\/p>\n
2×1 cm x soft tissues on left leg front middle.\n<\/p>\n
3. Internal:\n<\/p>\n
There was presence of blood and blood clots
\nin the chest and cranial cavity.\n<\/p>\n
According to the doctor the incised wounds were caused
\nby heavy  sharp cutting weapons such as farsa, tangi and sword
\nand lacerated wounds were caused by hard and blunt substance,
\nmay be by lathi.\n<\/p>\n
On the same day at about 1330 Hrs.  said doctor conducted
\npostmortem examination on the dead body of Ram Mohan and
\nfound the following  ante mortem injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tAbrasion:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\t2 x 2 cm on right leg front
\nupper part\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBruise:\n<\/p>\n
24 x 2 cm,  and 16.2 cm on the back
\n\tof the chest left side lateral part<\/p>\n
3.\tIncised wounds:\n<\/p>\n
1.\t11 x 1\/4 cm  x soft tissues on the right
\nscapular region.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t8 x 2 cm x cavity deep on the left
\noccipital parietal region of the head cutting
\nthe underlying bone and the brain matter.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t5 x 2 cm 3 = cm  on the left and
\nlateral side of neck upper part cutting the
\nsoft tissue and the bone vessels.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t 4 x 1\/4 cm x soft tissues on left
\nelbow lateral side.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tInternal:-\n<\/p>\n
There was contusion of soft tissues of the
\nchest wall left side.  There was fracture of
\nthird to 10 ribs with laceration of the left
\nlung.  There was presence of blood and
\nblood clots in the chest  and cranial cavity.\n<\/p>\n
According to the doctor, the injuries were caused by hard
\nand blunt substance, may be by lathi and stone and incised
\nwounds were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapons such as
\nfarsa, tangi or sword.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is urged by Shri D.N. Goburdhan, learned counsel for
\nthe appellants that the delay in lodging of the FIR and thereafter
\nfurther delay in sending the same to the concerned Magistrate,
\nclearly indicates that the accused-appellants have been falsely
\nimplicated and on this count alone the prosecution case fails and
\nis required to be discarded.  It is further urged by Shri Goburdhan
\nthat the accused-appellants could not have been convicted for the
\noffence under Section 302 IPC  with the aid of Section 149 of the
\nIndian Penal Code when there is no evidence of a common object
\nof the assembly to commit murder of Sohrai Puran and Ram
\nMohan Puran.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Anil Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the State, on the other hand, inter alia submitted that the
\ncommon object of the assembly has to be gathered from the facts
\nand circumstances of the case and that in this case there is
\nenough evidence on record to indicate that all the accused-
\nappellants have formed unlawful assembly to commit an offence
\nof murder of two deceased persons, namely, Sohrai Puran and
\nRam  Mohan Puran.  On the face of the substantive evidence led
\nby the prosecution to prove the guilt  of the appellants, the
\nprosecution case cannot be discarded only on the ground of delay
\nin lodging the FIR or delay in sending the information to the
\nMagistrate.\n<\/p>\n
The  prosecution has examined four eye witnesses, namely,
\nSadho Munda, PW-2, Kunjal Munda, PW-3, Gopal Puran, PW-5
\nand Chaita Puran, PW-9.  PW-2 Sadho Munda  in his evidence
\nstated   that he was grazing his cattle in the morning when he saw
\nSohrai Puran, Ram Mohan Puran (both deceased), Gopal Puran,
\nPW-5, and Chaitan Puran,  PW-9 were sowing Gujna in the field.
\nHe further stated that  he saw the accused persons along with
\nsome unknown persons who came towards the field from the side
\nof Jopno Village.  Balram was carrying tangi, Lemboo was
\narmed with farsa and Rabindra was armed with sword and rest of
\nthem were armed with lathis.  They came and assaulted Sohrai
\nPuran and Ram Mohan Puran and also assaulted Gopal and
\nChaita.  Gopal and Chaita  fled away from the field.  After the
\naccused ran away from the  scene of incident, he came near the
\ninjured persons who were then breathing and they were taken to
\ntheir houses but they died on the way.  To the same effect is the
\nstatement of PW-3 Kunjal Munda, who was also grazing his
\ncattle in the nearby field and saw the complaining party plowing
\nthe field for sowing Surguja.  He stated that after sowing they
\nwere taking rest under the tree when he saw from the eastern side
\nof the village Jopno, the accused party proceeding towards the
\nplace of incident.  He saw Balo (Balram) armed with tangi,
\nLemboo, armed with farsa and Gopal, armed with sword and
\nothers armed with lathis.  He saw the accused party assaulting
\nSorhai Puran and Ram Mohan Puran.  He also saw Gopal and
\nChaita  were inflicted injuries.  PW-5, Gopal Puran’s evidence
\nwas to the effect that he went to the field for plowing it and for
\nsowing Sarguja and when they were taking rest under the tree, he
\nsaw all the accused persons approaching them from the village
\nJopno, armed with sword, tangi and farsa.  On reaching the spot,
\naccused Huna Mahato threw stone at Sorhai Puran as a result of
\nwhich he fell down.  Thereafter, Dhananjay Mahato  assaulted
\nSohrai Puran with lathi and Rabindra Mahato assaulted with
\nsword causing injuries to him.  Lemboo also assaulted Sorhai
\nPuran  with farsa. He further said that Rabindra caused injuries
\nwith sword, Balram with thenga , Lemboo with farsa and other
\naccused persons assaulted Ram Mohan with thenga, as the  result
\nof injuries both the deceased  fell down and died.  He further
\ndeposed that Girish Mahato assaulted him with thenga on head
\nand Fagu Mahato hit him on the right arm with lathi.  Jag Mohan
\nhit Chaita with Thenga.  Thereafter,  he along with Chaita fled
\naway to Puti Tola.  He  further stated that the land where the
\ncrops were being sowed belonged to them, in the cross-
\nexamination of this witness, questions were put regarding
\nownership of the land where the crops were sowed.  He was
\nasked whether there was any case in respect of the land between
\nthe parties.   From this line of cross-examination, it is apparent
\nthat the defence is claiming ownership over the land.
\n\tAnother eye witness examined by the prosecution is Chaita
\nPuran, PW-9.  He supported the prosecution case and deposed
\nthat he along with  others was taking rest under the tree after
\nplowing and sowing sarguja seeds when accused appellants along
\nwith 5-6 other unknown persons came there.  He described that
\nRabindra was armed with sword, Balram was armed with tangi
\nand Lemboo was armed with farsa and rest of them were armed
\nwith lathis.  He further deposed that he and other stood up and
\nsaw Huna pelting stone at Sohrai Puran as a result of which he
\nfell down and thereafter Lemboo, who was armed with farsa and
\nBalram, armed with tangi, both assaulted Sohrai as a result of
\nwhich he died.  Thereafter, Rabindra with sword, Balram with
\ntangi and Lemboo with farsa, assaulted Ram Mohan Puran, and
\nothers assaulted Ram Mohan Puran with lathis.  He was also
\nassaulted by Jag Mohan and Laloo with lathi.  Thereafter, they
\nfled from the spot.  This witness stated that the occurrence took
\nplace due to the land in  Kend Tad.  He further deposed that it
\nwas not correct that the accused persons had at all told that they
\nhad purchased the Kenda Tad land in auction.  For the first time
\nthe accused persons told on the day of occurrence that it was their
\nland.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants is that evidence on record shows that only three
\naccused-appellants, namely, Rabindra Mahato, Lemboo and
\nBalram Mahato have assaulted the deceased persons with sharp
\nedged weapons and in the absence of proof of common object of
\nthe assembly  to cause death of two deceased persons the  other
\naccused persons could not have been convicted by taking aid of
\nSection 149 of the Indian Penal Code.  Section 149 of the Indian
\nPenal Code postulates an assembly of 5 or more persons having a
\ncommon object i.e. one of  those  named in Section 141  of
\nIndian Penal Code and then  doing of  the act  as by the  members
\nof it in prosecution of that object.  The basis of constructive guilt
\nunder Section 149 is mere membership of an unlawful assembly.
\nUnder Section 149, if the accused is a member of an unlawful
\nassembly, the common object of which is to commit a certain
\ncrime, and such a crime is committed by one or more of the
\nmembers of that assembly, every person who happens to be a
\nmember of that assembly would be liable for the commission of
\nthe crime  being a member of it irrespective of the fact whether
\nhe has actually committed the criminal act or not.    There is a
\ndistinction between the common object and common intention.
\nThe common object need not require prior concert and a common
\nmeeting of minds before the attack, and an unlawful object can
\ndevelop after the assembly gathered before the commission of the
\ncrime at the spot itself.  There need not be prior meeting of the
\nmind.  It would be enough that the members of the assembly
\nwhich constitutes five or more persons, have common object and
\nthat they acted as an assembly to achieve that object.  In
\nsubstance, Section 149 makes every member of the common
\nunlawful assembly responsible as a member for the act of each
\nand all merely because he is a member of the unlawful assembly
\nwith common object to be achieved by such an unlawful
\nassembly.  At the same time, one has to keep in mind that mere
\npresence in the unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable
\nunless there was a common object and that is shared by that
\nperson. The common object has to be found and can be gathered
\nfrom the facts and circumstances of each case.
\nFrom the facts found in the present case it appears that the
\nappellants claimed ownership of the land in question, when they
\ncame to know that the deceased and their men plowed the land
\nwhich they claimed to be their, they armed with weapons came to
\nthe place of incident to vindicate their right to the land by show
\nof force or use of force.  The intention to assert the right by force
\nis apparent from the fact that the appellants were armed with
\ndeadly weapons such as sword, tangi and farsa and some of them
\nwere carrying lathis.  All the persons came together at the spot
\narmed with weapons and immediately after reaching the spot,
\nafter short  exchange of words, they started assault and caused
\ngrievous injuries to two persons who died on the spot.  It is
\nalleged that the two eye witnesses namely PW-5 and PW-9 have
\nalso been assaulted.  The nature of the injuries found on the
\ndeceased gives clear indication  of a common intent of the
\nassembly to go to the extent of causing death of the persons who
\nhave plowed their land.  All the members reaching to the spot
\ntogether armed with  weapons and immediate attack on the
\npersons present there ,clearly exhibits the intention of the
\nunlawful assembly.  In  the facts and circumstances of the case
\nwe can safely infer the common object of the unlawful assembly
\nto do away with the deceased persons.  We have been taken
\nthrough the evidence and cross-examination  of the witnesses by
\nlearned counsel for the appellants.  We do not find any reason to
\ndisbelieve the version of these witnesses  which found approval
\nof two courts.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellants has then  urged that the
\ndelay in lodging the FIR and thereafter further delay in
\nforwarding the same to the Magistrate concerned  would lead to
\nthe conclusion that FIR had been recorded much later than one as
\nshown in the document and as such the very genesis of the
\nprosecution case belies and  cannot be relied upon to convict the
\naccused appellants.  Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of
\nthis Court in the matters of Meharaj Singh   vs.  State of U.P.
\n(1994) 5 S.C.C. 188,    Arjun Marik and others  vs.  State of
\nBihar,<\/a> 1994 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 372 and Suresh Chaudhary  vs.
\nState of Bihar (2003) 4 S.C.C. 128.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the matter of Meharaj Singh (supra), this Court in Para
\n12 has stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“FIR  in a criminal case and particularly in
\na murder case is a vital and valuable piece of
\nevidence for the purpose of appreciating the
\nevidence led at the trial.  The object of insisting
\nupon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the
\nearliest information regarding the circumstance in
\nwhich the crime was committed, including the
\nnames of the actual culprits and the parts played
\nby them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the
\nnames of the eyewitnesses , if any.  Delay in
\nlodging the FIR often results in embellishment,
\nwhich is a creature of an afterthought.  On account
\nof delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the
\nadvantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of
\nthe introduction of a coloured version or
\nexaggerated story. With a view to determine
\nwhether the FIR was lodged at the time it is
\nalleged to have been recorded, the courts
\ngenerally look for certain external checks.  One of
\nthe checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR,
\ncalled a special report in a murder case, by the
\nlocal Magistrate.  If this report is received by the
\nMagistrate late, it can give rise to an inference
\nthat the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged
\nto have been recorded, unless, of course the
\nprosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation
\nfor the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy
\nof the FIR by the local Magistrate .  Prosecution
\nhas led no evidence  at all in this behalf.  The
\nsecond external check  equally important is the
\nsending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead
\nbody and its  reference in the inquest report.  Even
\nthough the inquest report, prepared under Section
\n174 Cr.P .C., is aimed at serving a statutory
\nfunction, to lend credence to the prosecution case,
\nthe proceedings get reflected in the report.  The
\nabsence of those details is indicative of the fact
\nthat the prosecution story was still in an embryo
\nstate and had not been given any shape and that
\nthe FIR came to be recorded later on after due
\ndeliberations and consultations and was then ante-
\ntimed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged
\nFIR.  In our opinion, on account of the infirmities
\nas noticed above,  the FIR has lost its valu and
\nauthenticity and it appears to us that the same has
\nbeen ante-timed and had not been recorded  till the
\ninquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW-\n<\/p>\n
8.<\/p>\n
\tIn the matter of Arjun Marik (supra), this Court in Para
\n24 has stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The matter does not stop here.  There is yet
\nanother serious infirmity which further deepens the
\nsuspicion and casts cloud on the credibility of the
\nentire prosecution story  and which has also been
\nlost sight of by the trial court as well as the High
\nCourt and it is with regard to the sending of
\noccurrence  report (FIR)  TO THE magistrate
\nconcerned on 22-7-1985 i.e. on the 3rd day of the
\noccurrence.  Section 157 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure mandates that if, from information
\nreceived or otherwise, an officer in charge of
\npolice station  has reason to suspect  the
\ncommission of an offence which he is empowered
\nunder Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith
\nsend a report of the same to the Magistrate
\nempowered to take cognizance of such offence
\nupon a police report.  Section 157 Cr. .C.  thus in
\nother words directs the sending of the report
\nforthwith i.e. without any delay and immediately.
\nFurther, Section 159 Cr. P.C. envisages that  on
\nreceiving such report, the Magistrate may direct
\nan investigation or, if he thinks fit, to proceed at
\nonce or depute any other Magistrate subordinate
\nto him  to proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry
\ninto the case in the manner provided  in the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure.  The forwarding of the
\noccurrence report is indispensable and absolute
\nand it has to be forwarded  with earliest dispatch
\nwhich intention is implicit with the use of the word
\n“forthwith” occurring in Section 157, which
\nmeans promptly and without any undue delay.  The
\npurpose and object is so obvious  which is spelt out
\nfrom  the combined reading of Sections 157 and
\n159 Cr. P.C. .  It has the dual purpose, firstly to
\navoid the possibility of improvement  in the
\nprosecution story and introduction of any distorted
\nversion by deliberations and consultation and
\nsecondly to enable the Magistrate concerned to
\nhave a watch on  the progress of the investigation”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the matter of Suresh Chaudhary (supra) this Court in
\nPara 9 (bottom) has held that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“That apart, the express message which
\nPW-13 sent to the Jurisdictional Magistrate
\nreached the said Magistrate at his place only on
\n1012.1092 nearly 1 = days after the said
\ncomplaint was registered and we find no
\nexplanation from PW-13 as to this inordinate
\ndelay  which only adds to the doubtful
\ncircumstances surrounding the prosecution case”.\n<\/p>\n
There cannot be any manner of doubt that Section 157 of
\nCriminal Procedure Code requires sending of an FIR  to the
\nMagistrate forthwith which reaches promptly  and without undue
\ndelay .  The reason is obvious  to avoid any possibility of
\nimprovement in the prosecution story and also to enable the
\nMagistrate to have a watch on the progress of the investigation.
\nAt the same time, this lacuna on the part of the prosecution would
\nnot be the sole basis for throwing out the entire prosecution case
\nbeing fabricated if the prosecution had produced the reliable
\nevidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons.  The
\nprovisions of Section 157, Cr. P.C. are for the purpose of having
\na fair trial without there being any chance of fabrication or
\nintroduction  of the fact at subsequent stage of investigation.  The
\ncases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants do not lay
\ndown any law that simply because there is a delay in lodging the
\nFIR or sending it to the Magistrate forthwith, the entire case of
\nthe prosecution has to be discarded.  The decisions rendered by
\nthis Court and relied upon by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant would only show that this will be a material
\ncircumstance which will be taken into consideration while
\nappreciating the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter going through the material on record, we are of the
\nview that the prosecution has led reliable evidence the veracity of
\nwhich is not dislodged by delay in recording of the FIR and delay
\nin sending the same to the Magistrate in the facts and
\ncircumstances of this case.  At best it can be taken to be an
\ninfirmity in investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006 Author: P Naolekar Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 588 of 2005 PETITIONER: Rabindra Mahto & Anr. RESPONDENT: State of Jharkhand DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/01\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006 - 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\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-05T11:40:56+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-05T11:40:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3933,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-05T11:40:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006 - 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\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-05T11:40:56+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-05T11:40:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006"},"wordCount":3933,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006","name":"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-05T11:40:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rabindra-mahto-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-6-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rabindra Mahto & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2006"}]},{"@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\/189813","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=189813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189813\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}