BHOLA MAHTO vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Leave granted.

Appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 20241 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi2, which was rendered while disposing of his appeal3 under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While partly allowing such appeal by setting aside the conviction recorded by the relevant sessions court against the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 18604 and the sentence of life imprisonment, a Division Bench of the High 1 impugned order 2 High Court 3 CRADB No. 58 of 2003 4 IPC 1 Digitally signed by rashmi dhyani pant Date: 2026.03.18 14:46:56 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

While hearing the appeal, we are reminded of the expression “give him an inch and he will ask for a mile”.

Having regard to the final order we propose to pass, it is not considered necessary to examine the appeal on its own merits by appreciating and analysing the evidence – oral and documentary – presented at the trial. Suffice it to note, the appellant was convicted by the relevant sessions court on 25th November, 2002 in respect of the crime of murder committed by him on 28th October, 2000, whereafter he carried such conviction before the High Court in appeal in the early part of 2003 itself. It was initially considered on 21st January, 2003 and then on 25th February, 2003. Right from 29th October, 2000, the appellant was in pre-trial custody. The custody certificate reveals that he was released from custody on 10th March, 2003. Though the relevant order is not on record, we find from the impugned order that the appellant was on bail. It is, therefore, assumed that he obtained an order for suspension of sentence and was consequently released on bail. For long 20 years thence, the appeal was not listed for hearing. Ultimately, the appeal came to be listed before a Division Bench of the High Court on 14th November, 2024. The order passed on that day records that none had appeared on behalf of the appellant despite repeated calls. The appeal having been filed in 2003, the Division Bench appointed an advocate of 2

The learned amicus argued the appeal on 2nd December, 2024. He raised the point that the “case cannot come within the purview of Section 302” of the IPC. According to him, insofar as the weapon of offence is concerned, the evidence of PW-2 on the one hand and the PW-3 and PW-4 on the other were contradictory. That apart, the entire incident occurred in the heat of passion when a sudden quarrel had taken place due to watering of the field; hence, Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC would be attracted in the case. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the appeal and argued that having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased (four blows on the head and one on the leg), there was clear intention of the appellant to commit murder. The discrepancy pointed out insofar as the weapon of offence is concerned, counsel argued, was immaterial. Since the statement of the autopsy surgeon (PW-1) suggested that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by hard and blunt substance, it substantiated and corroborated the oral evidence of PW-3 and PW-4. Dismissal of the appeal was, accordingly, prayed. 5 amicus 3

Upon threadbare consideration of the evidence led at the trial, the Division Bench formed the opinion that the case falls within Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC. Accordingly, the conviction for murder was set aside and substituted by recording conviction under Section 304 Part - II with a reduced sentence of imprisonment, as noted above. Since the appellant was on bail during pendency of the appeal, such concession was withdrawn and he was directed to forthwith surrender to serve the rest of the sentence, if not already served.

The custody certificate dated 16th August, 2025 reveals that as on that date, the appellant suffered incarceration for two years eleven months twenty-seven days. Today, the appellant has served a little less than three years seven months out of the prison term of five years.

When the special leave petition, out of which this appeal arises, was taken up for consideration on 7th November, 2025, learned counsel for the appellant had informed a coordinate bench of this Court that the appellant had not been made aware of absence of learned counsel engaged by him to prosecute the appeal before the Division Bench and that such bench proceeded to appoint the amicus without the appellant’s knowledge. Hearing the same, the coordinate bench had the occasion to call for a report from the registry of the High Court as to whether the statement of the appellant is correct. 4

A report dated 19th November, 2025 has since been filed by the