1

    NON-REPORTABLE

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2015

SUBHASH MAHTO                                       ...APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR                                 ...RESPONDENT(S)                           

J U D G M E N T

R.BANUMATHI,J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved

by  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  whereby  the  High  Court

confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC

and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.

2. On  01.10.1988  at  about  10.00  p.m.  the  complainant

-Suresh Kumar while proceeding towards his home took deceased

Ramanand Mahto on the scooter along with Ram Briksh Mahto. All

of them proceeded to their house. At about 10.30 p.m. to 11.45

p.m., when they reached in front of the tea stall of Lalan

Mahto  situated  at  Begampur  Mandai  Mohalla,  accused  -

Ramachandra  Gareri  and  his  father  Lachhu  Gareri  started

attacking  deceased  Ramanand  Mahto  with  Bhujali  and  Dab

respectively. The appellant - Subhash Mahto and others namely,

Asmani  Mahto,  Rishi  Mahto,  Uma  Nath  Mahto,  Subhash  Mahto,

Rameshwar Mahto, Bijendra Mahto, Ramroop Mahto, Dukhit Mahto

2

are  alleged  to  have  caught  hold  of  the  deceased-  Ramanand

Mahto  and,  thereafter,  Lachhu  Gareri  and  Ramchandra  Gareri

chopped the head of the deceased by their weapons. On seeing

PW-2 (Ram Briksh Mahto) and PW-1 (Santosh Kumar) coming to the

spot of occurrence. The accused persons dragged the headless

body  and  threw  nearby  ditch.  The  appellant-accused  viz.

Subhash Mahto is said to have packed the severed head in a

plastic  bag  and  ran  away  with  the  accused  -  Ramachandra

Gareri.

3. Based upon evidence of eye witnesses Suresh Kumar (PW-

5) and Ram Brikesh Mahto (PW-2), the Trial Court convicted

Ramachandra Gareri and Lachhu Gareri under Section 302 IPC and

others under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under

Section  201  IPC  and  sentenced  them  to  undergo  life

imprisonment. In appeal, the High Court gave benefit of doubt

to Anant Lal Mahto, Rishi Mahto and Asmani Mahto and confirmed

the conviction of the other accused.

4. We  have  heard  Mr.  Subhro  Sanyal,  learned  amicus

appointed through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

and Ms. Abha R. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-

state and also perused the impugned judgment and materials on

record.

5. The overt-act attributed to the appellant - Subhash

Mahto is that he caught hold of deceased- Ramanand Mahto and

that he put severed head of the deceased in a plastic bag and

ran away with the accused - Ramachandra Gareri.

3

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made

meticulous  submission  contending  that  the  case  of  Subhash

Mahto stood on different footing than the other accused who

were  alleged  to  have  caught  hold  of  the  deceased  and,

therefore, the case of the Subhash Mahto ought to have been

considered differently.  In our view, the above contention of

the  appellant  does  not  merit  acceptance.  The  name  of  the

appellant - Subhash Mahto and the overt-act attributed to him

that  he  caught  hold  of  the  deceased  has  been  specifically

mentioned in the FIR.

7. In  this  regard,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

State  has  drawn  our  attention  that  the  similarly  situated

accused,  namely,  Mundrika  Mahto,  Uma  Nath  Mahto,  Rameshwar

Mahto,  Bijendra  Mahto,  Ramroop  Mahto,  Dukhit  Mahto,  Lachhu

Gareri  and  Ramachandra  Gareri  who  also  caught  hold  of  the

deceased have preferred the appeal viz. Criminal Appeal No.701

of 1993 before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed by

this  Court  by  a  reasoned  order.  Learned  counsel  for  the

appellant has submitted that Anant Lal Mahto, Rishi Mahto and

Asmani  Mahto  were  acquitted  by  the  High  Court  even  though

specific  overt-act  were  attributed  to  them  and  the  appeal

preferred by the State of Bihar was dismissed for default by

this Court. It was further submitted that when one batch of

appeals preferred by one set of accused in which conviction

was confirmed and appeals preferred by another set of accused

similarly  situated  were  allowed  acquitting  them,  the  Court

should lean in favour of the accused.  We are not inclined to

4

accept the submissions since criminal appeal preferred by the

similarly  situated  accused  was  already  dismissed  by  this

Court, as noted above.

8. In the result, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. We  express  our  appreciation  towards  valuable

assistance  rendered  by  Mr.  Subhro  Sanyal,  learned  amicus

appearing for the appellant.

….......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [INDIRA BANERJEE]

NEW DELHI 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2018