- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mahesh Mahto And Another v. State Of Bihar .
Factual and Procedural Background
Meera Devi married Umesh Mahto (A-1) in 1982 and entered her matrimonial home after the duragman ceremony in 1983. According to the prosecution, A-1, his brother Mahesh Mahto (A-2, the present appellant) and their mother Ramdulari Devi (A-3) were dissatisfied with the dowry and continued to press for additional items, allegedly harassing Meera Devi.
On or about 9 September 1984, Meera Devi disappeared from her matrimonial home. Three days later, her body was discovered on the bank of the River Gandak; the post-mortem revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries consistent with homicidal violence.
The police registered an FIR, investigated the matter and charged all three family members under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Sessions Court convicted A-1 and A-2, sentencing each to life imprisonment for murder and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence; A-3 was acquitted. The Patna High Court dismissed their appeal. Both convicts sought special leave from the Supreme Court; leave was granted only to A-2, whose present appeal challenges his convictions and sentences.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the circumstantial evidence on record established beyond reasonable doubt that Mahesh Mahto (A-2) shared the common intention to murder Meera Devi and was liable under Sections 302/34 IPC.
- Whether the evidence proved his liability under Sections 201/34 IPC for causing disappearance of Meera Devi’s body.
- If liability under Section 201/34 IPC remained, what sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The prosecution led only general allegations of dowry demand; no witness proved that A-2 harassed or assaulted Meera Devi, making the murder conviction unsustainable.
- The sole eyewitness to disposal of the body (PW-15) was introduced late; his statement was never recorded under Section 161 CrPC, undermining reliability.
- Even if presence at disposal of the body were accepted, it did not prove participation in the murder.
- At the time of the incident A-2 was 18 years old and acted under the influence of his elder brother; this warranted a lenient sentence.
Respondent’s (State) Arguments
- The chain of circumstantial evidence, including long-standing dowry demands and harassment, established a common intention shared by all accused.
- PW-15’s testimony was credible; he identified both brothers carrying a woman’s body on a cot and throwing it into the river, proving their joint effort to destroy evidence.
- The concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and High Court merited deference.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
On the murder charge (Sections 302/34 IPC): The Court re-examined the circumstantial evidence regarding dowry demands and ill-treatment. It found only “general allegations” against the appellant; witnesses admitted that A-2 made such a demand only once, and no evidence showed he harassed or assaulted Meera Devi. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-2 shared a common intention to murder Meera Devi. His conviction for murder was therefore unsustainable.
On the charge of causing disappearance of evidence (Sections 201/34 IPC): The Court accepted the testimony of PW-15, who stated that, on a moon-lit night, he saw four persons—including A-1 and A-2—carrying a woman’s body on a cot and throwing it into the River Gandak. While the investigating officer omitted to record PW-15’s statement earlier, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the witness remained credible. This evidence established that A-2 actively participated in disposing of the body, attracting liability under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
On sentence: The Court considered mitigating factors: the appellant’s age (18 years) and the likelihood that he acted under his elder brother’s pressure. It concluded that the original seven-year sentence for the Section 201/34 offence was excessive and reduced the term to the period already undergone.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is ALLOWED IN PART. The conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC are set aside; the conviction under Sections 201/34 IPC is affirmed, but the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
Implications: The decision frees the appellant from the murder charge while upholding accountability for concealing the crime. No new legal principle is articulated; the ruling primarily affects the parties by overturning the life sentence and releasing the appellant, given that he has already served the reduced term.
S.P Kurdukar, J.— This criminal appeal by special leave is filed by Mahesh Mahto (A-2) challenging the conviction and sentence passed under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC. Originally Umesh Mahto (A-1), Mahesh Mahto (A-2) and Ramdulari Devi (A-3) were tried for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC for committing the murder of Meera Devi, the wife of Umesh Mahto (A-1). Meera Devi was married to A-1 in the year 1982 and Duragman (second marriage) took place in the month of Baishakh, 1983. It is alleged by the prosecution that at the time of Duragman A-1 demanded a scooter but the said demand could not be fulfilled because of financial difficulties of the brother of Meera Devi who, however, assured that he would give a bicycle. Accordingly a bicycle was given to A-1. Despite this, A-1 and the other accused were not satisfied and they made a further demand of some furniture articles. The brother of Meera Devi was unable to meet these demands at that time but, however, these furniture items were supplied to them at a later stage. It is alleged by the prosecution that A-1, A-2 and A-3 were not fully satisfied and were causing harassment to Meera Devi. The brother of Meera Devi sought to patch up the differences through a mediator, even then things could not be sorted out and harassment continued. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 12-9-1984 Ram Vinod Prasad went to Ramdeo Mahto (Mama) to pay him the cost of furniture items and thereafter both of them went to the house of A-1 to request him and his family members not to harass and assault Meera Devi. When they enquired about Meera Devi, Biseshar Mahto told him that she was not in the house since the last three days. When this information was given to Ramdeo Mahto he came to the village of Umesh Mahto (A-1) and made enquiries about Meera Devi. None of the inmates was able to give any information about her. When enquiries were made in the village, an old lady who was picking up cowdung told him that on Sunday last all the three accused persons committed the murder of Meera Devi and threw her dead body into River Gandak. Ram Vinod Prasad thereafter went to Khanpur Police Station and lodged the report (Ext. 2). The FIR (Ext. 5) was drawn up and investigation commenced. The investigating agency could not trace the dead body of Meera Devi despite its search. However, Ram Vinod Prasad and his brother continued the search and ultimately the dead body of Meera Devi was found at the bank of River Gandak on 15-9-1984. The information in that behalf was sent to the police who arrived there and prepared the inquest report. The dead body was sent to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur for post-mortem examination. After completing the investigation, the three accused persons were put up for trial for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC.
2. The prosecution case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence and to prove the same it examined various witnesses and also placed on record the documentary evidence. Dr Jamaluddin (PW 9), Dr B.N Prasad (PW 10) and Dr K.C Sinha (PW 11) who jointly held the post-mortem examination were examined at the trial.
3. At the outset it may be stated that there is no challenge to the fact that Meera Devi died a homicidal death. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the evidence of these three doctors in detail. Suffice it to say that the team of doctors noticed fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th thoracic ribs on the front of the left side of the chest and found blood clots on the corresponding inner surface of the chest wall. Thoracic cavity was full of blood clots. On further dissection, middle portion of the left lung was found ruptured. Stomach was not containing water. There was no foreign body in trachea. Lungs alveoli was not distended in water. Two nails of the size 1″ × 2 1/2″ respectively were found pierced through and through on right dorsum of foot and right hand respectively. Injuries caused by nails were post-mortem in nature. The nails had been preserved and sealed and were handed over to the constables. The ante-mortem injuries in the chest were caused by a hard and blunt substance which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. We, therefore, see no hesitation in holding that Meera Devi met with a homicidal death.
4. The Sessions Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record found the appellant and his brother Umesh Mahto (A-1) guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC and accordingly sentenced both of them to suffer life imprisonment and RI for 7 years respectively. However, Ramdulari Devi (A-3) was given the benefit of doubt and came to be acquitted.
5. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed on 16-11-1987. Both the convicted accused thereafter filed special leave petition through jail and this Court vide its order dated 24-4-1989 granted special leave to Mahesh Mahto (A-2), but refused to grant leave to Umesh Mahto (A-1) and dismissed his special leave petition.
6. Meera Devi (now dead) was the wife of Umesh Mahto (A-1) and Mahesh Mahto (A-2) is his younger brother. It is the prosecution case that A-1, A-2 and A-3 were demanding dowry and other articles from the brother of Meera Devi and for that reason they were harassing and assaulting her. To prove this story the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Ramdeo Mahto (PW 7) (Mama), Ram Vinod Prasad (PW 8) and Sheo Kumar (PW 12) who are brothers of Meera Devi. We have gone through their evidence and we find that there is a general allegation against the three accused that they demanded a scooter and some other furniture articles. They further stated that only once the appellant made such demand. There is no evidence on the record to substantiate the prosecution case that the appellant was causing any harassment or assaulting Meera Devi. The courts below have totally overlooked this fact and had erroneously held the appellant guilty for committing the murder of Meera Devi with the aid of Section 34 IPC. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the appellant in committing the murder of Meera Devi.
7. What remains to be considered is as to whether conviction of the appellant under Sections 201/34 IPC is sustainable? To prove this charge against the appellant the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Chintaman Mahto (PW 15). He is the resident of another village and has stated that he was posted as an operator in the Irrigation Department from 1982 to 1984 at Village Bhore Jairam. He knew A-1 as he used to go to his house very often. On 9-9-1984 during the night when he had gone for answering the call of nature near the bundh of River Gandak, he saw four persons carrying a dead body on the cot. It was a moonlit night and when he flashed his torch he identified the appellant and his brother Umesh Mahto (A-1). When he asked them whose dead body it was, they told him that it was of some woman and they proceeded towards River Gandak. They then threw the dead body into the river. Admittedly the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement under Section 161 CrPC and for that purpose the protest petition was filed by the informant against the investigating agency. Several objections were raised to the credibility of the evidence of this witness but the courts below for good reasons accepted the evidence of Chintaman Mahto (PW 15) as trustworthy. We have gone through the judgments of the courts below as well as PW 15's evidence and we are satisfied that his evidence can be accepted as far as the incident of carrying the dead body towards River Gandak and thereafter throwing the same into the river is concerned. The conviction of the appellant, therefore, under Sections 201/34 IPC must be confirmed.
8. Coming to the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 201/34 IPC it was urged on behalf of the appellant that at the time of incident he was 18 years' old and was staying with his elder brother Umesh Mahto (A-1). The possibility that he having been pressed by his brother A-1 to carry the dead body of Meera Devi cannot be ruled out. He may not have been able to disobey his brother, younger in age as he was. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of seven years awarded to the appellant was not justified. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 201/34 IPC to the period already undergone.
9. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302/34 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. His conviction under Sections 201/34 IPC is confirmed but, however, the substantive sentence awarded to him by the courts below is reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly.
Alert