Dismissed¶24

Parmeshwar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2024B.A./7038/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No. 7038 of 2024; Order dated 06.09.2024; Justice Subhash Chand; bail rejected; murder of father; parricide; axe/Tangi; Parmeshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand; Nawadih P.S. Case No. 112 of 2019; S.T. No. 159 of 2020; Section 302 IPC; Section 106 Evidence Act; burden of proof on accused residing with deceased; eyewitness Basanti Devi; recovery on confessional statement; postmortem head injury; Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat; District Bokaro.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner admittedly resided in the very house with his deceased father and was along with him on the fateful night, the burden of proving how the homicidal death was caused shifts upon the petitioner in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. ¶22

Parmeshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Parmeshwar Mahto, arraigned for the murder of his father under Section 302 IPC in Nawadih P.S. Case No. 112 of 2019 / S.T. No. 159 of 2020, should be released on bail.

¶14

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner fled away from the house armed with Tangi soon after the commission of the murder and was seen by Basanti Devi, which corroborates that the perpetrator of the crime is the petitioner himself.

¶23

Key takeaways

The testimony of the witnesses Doli Devi, Govind Mahto, Khublal Mahto and Uttam Mahto, relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, has no bearing since these witnesses learnt of the incident from Basanti Devi (hearsay).ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application – Rejected. High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Subhash Chand, J.), Order dated 06.09.2024 in B.A. No. 7038 of 2024, rejects the bail prayer of Parmeshwar Mahto in connection with Nawadih P.S. Case No. 112 of 2019, corresponding to S.T. No. 159 of 2020 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat. The F.I.R. records that on 11.12.2019 the applicant allegedly murdered his father Puran Mahto by assaulting him with an axe. Witness Basanti Devi stated she saw the applicant leaving by cycle carrying a bag and Tangi at the time hue and cry arose from the house; the Tangi was recovered on the applicant's confessional statement and the postmortem corroborated death by head injury. Holding that the applicant resided in the same house and was with the deceased on the fateful night, the Court found that the burden of proof shifts upon the petitioner under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and that his flight armed with Tangi corroborates that he is the perpetrator; the testimony of Doli Devi, Govind Mahto, Khublal Mahto and Uttam Mahto was found to have no bearing as they derived knowledge from Basanti Devi. The Court observed that any observation made in the bail petition shall not affect the merits of the case.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 7038 of 2024

¶3

Parmeshwar Mahto, aged about 42 years, son of Late Puran Mahto, resident of village Baradih, Jamuniyatanr, P.O. Bhendra, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶4

…. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand …. ... Opp. Party --------

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶8

For the Petitioner For the State

¶9

: Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate : Mrs.Amrita Kumari, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

Order No. 02/ dated 06.09.2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Parmeshwar Mahto with the prayer to release on bail in connection with Nawadih P.S. Case No. 112 of 2019, corresponding to S.T.No. 159 of 2020, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. The F.I.R. of this case was lodged against Parmeshwar Mahto with these allegations that on 11.12.2019 at 6 O’ clock the informant came to know from one Mulchand over the mobile phone that her father had been murdered by his son Parmeshwar Mahto by assaulting with the axe. Having received this information, the informant reached to village Baradih Tola Jamuniatanr and found her father lying in pool of blood. Her brother Parmeshwar Mahto had absconded from

¶15

the house.

¶16

The place of occurrence is the house wherein the petitioner and his father were residing, same is situated in village Baradih, Jamuniyatanr P.S. Nawadih, District-Bokaro.

¶17

The witness Basanti Devi has stated corroborating the prosecution story that at 5:30 in the morning while she was sweeping with the broom in front of her house saw Parmeshwar Mahto going by the cycle having a bag and Tangi in his hand and at the same time she also heard hue and cry from his house that Puran Mahto had been murdered. When she reached there found the dead-body of Puran Mahto in the very courtyard of the house. All the door of the house were closed. This witness also told all the persons present that she had seen Parmeshwar Mahto going by the cycle having Tangi in his hand towards Dibragarh. Her statement is also corroborated with the statement of Govind Mahto and Uttam Mahto and also Khubhlal Mahto. All these witnesses came to know Basanti Devi.

¶18

Further this petitioner was also arrested by the Police and on his confessional statement and pointing out the Tangi used in commission of the murder was also recovered. Postmortem report corroborates the cause of death head injury as there was incised wound on the occipital region and lacerated wound on the left ear.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

¶20

¶21

the testimony of the witness Doli Devi, Govind Mahto, Khublal Mahto & Uttam Mahto. Their testimony has no bearing since these witnesses came to know from Basanti Devi that who had seen the petitioner going by the cycle armed with Tangi at the very time of commission of murder of his father.

¶22

Admittedly, the petitioner was also residing in the very house with his father. On the fateful night he was also along with his father. How the homicidal death of his father was caused, the burden of proof shifts upon the petitioner in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

¶23

Since the petitioner soon after commission of murder also fled away from the house armed with Tangi who was also seen by Basanti Devi which also corroborates this fact that perpetrator of the crime is petitioner himself.

¶24

In view of the above, the bail petition of the petitioner is rejected.

¶25

Any observation made in this bail petition shall not affect the merits of the case.

¶26

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶27

P.K.S

¶28

Parmeshwar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moinuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prashant Sen Alias Prakash Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Firoj Ansari Alias MD Firoj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukhu Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Munda Alias Bhakhra Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand