IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1078 OF 2006

Prahlad Mahto & Ors.                                      ….Appellants

Versus

State of Jharkhand            …Respondent

O R D E R

We have heard the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

gone through the impugned judgments.  We see that the High  

Court and trial court had found that the seven appellants were  

involved in the incident.  The learned counsel for the appellants  

has, however, argued that specific roles had been ascribed to  

Basudeo Mahto, Safi Mahto and Kato Mahto in the FIR as also  

in  the  statement  of  the  three  eye  witnesses,  but  the  post-

mortem report and the injury report of the deceased and the  

injured witnesses respectively did not show the presence of any  

injuries  at  the instance  of  Sri  Mahato,  Basudeo Mahato  and  

Kato Mahato, although they were as per the prosecution case  

armed with lathies.  It is true that it is often difficult to arrive at  

a true assessment as to what has happened but in a case of

deep  rooted  group  

rivalry and animosity between the rival parties and in the face of  

the fact that a large number of accused have been involved, the  

possibility  of  false  implication  cannot  be  entirely  ruled  out.  

Moreover, in the facts of this case, we find that whereas accused  

Prahlad  Mahto,  Naresh  Mahto  and  Sudhir  Mahto  have  been  

attributed specific injuries, the others have been given general  

roles  that  they  too  had  caused  injuries.   There  is  thus  

possibility  that some of  the accused could have been booked  

falsely.  

We,  accordingly,  dismiss  the  appeal  of  Prahlad  Mahto,  

Naresh Mahto and Sudhir Mahto, but allow the appeal of Sri  

Mahto,  Basudeo  Mahto  and  Kato  Mahto  and  order  their  

acquittal.  They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any  

other case.  Their bail bonds shall stand discharged accordingly.  

         ……………………… ……J.

         (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

              ……………………… ….J.

          (J.M. PANCHAL) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 27, 2010.

Crl. Appeal  No.1078/2006

2