Case Background
This case arises from a sudden daytime shooting that took place on 27.04.2016 in village Bibiganj, under Udwantnagar Police Station, District Bhojpur.
On that day, a marriage ceremony of the informant’s nephew, Munna Mahto, was being performed at the informant’s house. The groom’s party was to proceed to village Harigaon. Musicians and band players were performing on a narrow lane running east to west in front of the house.
According to the informant, around 11:45 a.m., three men – Manoj Yadav, Bharat Mahto and Kunwar Mahto – reached in front of his house. Manoj Yadav and Bharat Mahto allegedly took out country-made pistols from their waists and fired at the informant’s son, Ratan Mahto, from close range. Ratan fell to the ground after being hit on the head and chest. Then, according to the informant, Kunwar Mahto also fired at Ratan, hitting his right arm.
Hearing the gunshots, neighbours came towards the spot, but the assailants fled. The informant took his injured son to the District Hospital at Ara, where the doctor declared him dead.
The informant also told the police that the father of Bharat and Kunwar had, 2–4 years earlier, transferred about 2 kathas of land to the informant’s brother, Raghu Mahto. Due to this transfer there was a land dispute between Raghu and Kunwar, and even a title suit was pending. The informant alleged that because of this dispute, the accused killed his son.
Assistant Sub-Inspector Dil Kumar Bharti of Ara Nagar Police Station recorded the informant’s statement (fardbeyan) at the Ara District Hospital at about 01:30 p.m. on 27.04.2016 and held an inquest over the dead body. The statement was sent to Udwantnagar Police Station, where a formal FIR in Case No.189 of 2016 was registered at about 07:30 p.m. under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Station House Officer of Udwantnagar Police Station entrusted Sub-Inspector Manoj Singh, In-charge of Gajrajganj Outpost, with the investigation. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against Bharat Mahto and Kunwar Mahto under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Manoj Yadav was also named in the FIR, but the case against him was later abated because he died during trial.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, committed the case to the Sessions Court, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No.214 of 2017 and made over to the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur at Ara.
The trial court framed charges against Bharat and Kunwar under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty. After trial, by judgment dated 21.01.2019, the trial court convicted both and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000 each for murder, and three years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000 each for the Arms Act offence. In default of payment of fines, further imprisonment was ordered.
Aggrieved, both convicts filed separate criminal appeals (DB) before the Patna High Court – Criminal Appeal (DB) No.356 of 2019 by Bharat Mahto and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.337 of 2019 by Kunwar Mahto. These appeals were heard together and decided by a Division Bench.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court carefully went through the entire trial record. The main question was whether the four family witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) were genuine eye-witnesses and whether their evidence was reliable enough to uphold a conviction for murder.
During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1 was Munna Mahto, the groom and nephew of the informant. PW-2 was the informant, Godhan Mahto and father of the deceased. PW-3, Vishwanath Mahto, was the informant’s father. PW-4, Shiv Kumar Mahto, was the informant’s brother. PW-5 was Manoj Kumar, the Investigating Officer. PW-6 was Dr. Krishna Nand Sinha, who conducted the postmortem.
PW-1 stated that around 11:45 a.m. he was standing in front of the door of the house while the band was playing on the lane outside. He deposed that Manoj, Bharat and Kunwar came in front of the house and all three fired at Ratan – Manoj and Bharat on his head and chest, and Kunwar on his right arm. Ratan was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead.
In cross-examination, PW-1 described the layout: a 4–5 feet wide east–west lane in front of the house, about 100 yards long, linking the main road on both sides. He said his maternal uncle and grandfather were in the cowshed opposite the house, and by the time they reached the spot, the assailants had fled.
PW-2, the informant and father of Ratan, claimed he was in the cowshed and his son was standing at its door when the shooting took place. He confirmed that Manoj fired at Ratan’s head, Bharat at the right side of the rib cage, and Kunwar at the right hand. He admitted there was a land dispute and litigation regarding land purchased by his brother Raghu from the father of the accused. He also stated the lane between the residential house and the cowshed was about six feet wide and that he saw the incident from about three feet away. He acknowledged that no villager said anything about their own presence at the scene.
PW-3, the grandfather, said he was collecting used plates in the courtyard after about 50 guests had taken lunch and some 15–16 more were waiting to eat. Women were performing marriage rituals on the western roof, where Munna was being bathed, and band music was going on in the lane. Ratan was standing there when he was shot.
PW-4, Shiv Kumar, stated that he was inside the cowshed when the incident happened. He gave a similar account of the firing as the others and was also a witness to the inquest. In cross-examination, he said about 50 persons were at the door at the time, with 10 villagers nearby, and that music was being played loudly. He also admitted that although there were 50–60 persons present, no villager came forward to say anything about the incident.
PW-5, the Investigating Officer, described the house of the informant as north-facing on a PCC lane at Bibiganj, with the offence occurring on the lane in front. Opposite was the cowshed, and nearby was the house of one Kunwar Mahto. He confirmed that ASI Dil Kumar Bharti had held the inquest at about 12:00 noon and recorded the fardbeyan at 01:30 p.m. He received the fardbeyan at around 03:00 p.m. from a local chowkidar and started investigation, while the formal FIR at Udwantnagar P.S. was registered at about 07:30 p.m.
PW-6, the doctor, found one entry wound on the right frontal area of the head with charring, a corresponding exit wound at the back of the skull, entry and exit wounds on the right lower arm, and an entry wound on the right mid-chest with charring and a bullet lodged near the left hilum of the chest. In cross-examination he said injuries 3 and 4 on the arm could be inflicted when the victim was standing, from a distance of about 12 feet.
The defence case, as seen from the cross-examination and the Section 313 CrPC statements, was a complete denial of the prosecution version. The appellants alleged false implication due to the land dispute.
Through their counsel, the appellants attacked the prosecution case mainly on five grounds:
First, they argued that PW-1 to PW-4’s presence as eye-witnesses was doubtful. They pointed out contradictions about where PW-1 was at the time of firing – in front of the door as per his evidence, or on the western roof taking bath as per PW-3 and PW-4.
Second, they highlighted inconsistencies about whether PW-2 was in the cowshed or courtyard and whether the courtyard position allowed a view of the lane. They even prepared a sketch map from the case diary description to show it was impossible to see the lane from the courtyard.
Third, they criticised non-examination of ASI Dil Kumar Bharti, who had recorded the initial statement and prepared the inquest, calling him a material witness. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, they argued that failure to examine such a witness should lead to an adverse inference.
Fourth, they questioned why, when 50–60 people and several villagers were present, not a single independent witness from the village was examined.
Fifth, they challenged the investigation starting before formal registration of the FIR and alleged improper examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, citing Supreme Court decisions in Reena Hazarika, Satbir Singh and Kalicharan.
The State’s counsel defended the conviction. She submitted that in present social conditions, independent villagers often avoid testifying in serious criminal cases for fear of enmity and retaliation. Therefore, the Court should evaluate the evidence of family witnesses on its own strength and not discard it only because they are related to the deceased.
The High Court then analysed the issues in detail.
On the complaint of no independent witnesses, the Court accepted the State’s argument that, in modern times, bystanders and villagers often stay away from criminal cases. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer had indeed tried to examine local people, but everyone expressed ignorance. It held that the absence of independent witnesses does not by itself make the prosecution case false when there is reliable family testimony.
On contradictions about the exact position of PW-1 and others at the time of the incident, the Court treated these as minor, not material. It accepted the explanation that, in the local Bhojpur context, the word “darwaja” (njokta) means the front portion of the house leading to the entrance, and behind that there is usually an inner courtyard (aangan) where women stay. There is a six-feet passage between the entrance door and courtyard door from where the PCC lane is visible. Thus, a person standing in that passage area could see the lane and the firing.
The Court reasoned that in a marriage house with many people doing different tasks, it is natural that one witness may misstate or differently describe the exact location of another at a particular moment. Such variation, in the Court’s view, did not strike at the root of the prosecution case and did not show that the witnesses were invented or absent.
On non-examination of ASI Dil Kumar Bharti, the Court examined Section 174 CrPC and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, holding that an enquiry under Section 174 (inquest proceedings) is different from investigation of a cognizable offence under Section 154 onwards. Since the fardbeyan and inquest report were exhibited without objection, the Court held that not examining ASI Bharti did not amount to suppressing a material witness.
On the challenge to the investigation beginning before formal FIR registration, the Court referred to Section 156(1) and (2) CrPC. It noted that any officer in charge of a police station may investigate any cognizable case without a Magistrate’s order, and his proceedings cannot be questioned merely because of technicalities about the timing of formal registration. Here, PW-5 began investigation on receiving the fardbeyan at his outpost at about 03:00 p.m. and the formal FIR was then registered at 07:30 p.m. The Court found no illegality in this.
On the Section 313 CrPC argument, the High Court reproduced the key questions put to the accused, which specifically asked whether they had, along with others, come armed with pistols on 27.04.2016 at about 11:45 a.m. to the informant’s door and fired at Ratan with an illegal pistol, causing his death. The appellants admitted hearing the witnesses but denied the allegations. The Court held that the incriminating circumstances were put to them in clear terms, and there was no defect in their examination, so the Supreme Court cases cited by the defence were not attracted.
Having addressed all objections, the High Court concluded that PW-1 to PW-4 were natural and credible witnesses. Their evidence was consistent with the medical evidence of close-range firearm injuries found by PW-6. The land dispute motive also supported the prosecution version. The Court found no reason to disbelieve them or to interfere with the trial court’s assessment.
Accordingly, the Division Bench held that there was no ground to overturn the conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No.214 of 2017. Both appeals were dismissed, and the life sentence and other punishments were affirmed. Records were directed to be sent back to the trial court, and the appellants were to be supplied a copy of the judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is significant for families involved in serious village disputes, especially land disputes that turn violent.
First, it shows that the Court can rely on close relatives as eye-witnesses, even if no independent villagers come forward. The Court recognised the ground reality that neighbours often stay silent out of fear. What matters is whether the relatives’ evidence is natural, consistent and supported by medical and other records.
Second, minor differences in where exactly each witness says another person was standing, especially in a crowded marriage house, will not by themselves break a murder case. The Court will focus on the core story – here, that the accused came armed and fired at the deceased in front of many people – rather than small discrepancies.
Third, the judgment clarifies that proceedings like inquest under Section 174 CrPC and early steps by police on receiving information do not become invalid simply because the formal FIR is registered a few hours later. As long as the case is properly registered and investigated, technical timing issues alone will not set an accused free.
Finally, the decision confirms that courts will examine whether the accused were given a chance to answer the main allegations under Section 313 CrPC, but will not annul a conviction if that opportunity was actually given in substance, even if the questioning format is brief.
For ordinary readers in Bihar, this means that if a serious crime happens in their family and neighbours are afraid to support them, the case can still succeed based on family witnesses, provided their statements are clear and consistent and match medical evidence.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a conviction for murder be sustained mainly on the testimony of close relatives when no independent village witnesses are examined and there are some contradictions in their statements?
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that PW-1 to PW-4 were natural and reliable witnesses, their contradictions were minor, and absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the prosecution case. - Issue: Does non-examination of the ASI who recorded the initial fardbeyan and conducted the inquest, and the fact that investigation started before formal FIR registration, vitiate the trial?
Answer: No. The Court held that inquest under Section 174 CrPC is distinct from regular investigation, the ASI was not a material witness in the circumstances, and Section 156 CrPC permits investigation of a cognizable case even before formal FIR endorsement by the SHO. - Issue: Were the appellants denied a fair opportunity under Section 313 CrPC to explain incriminating circumstances against them?
Answer: No. The Court found that specific questions about the firing incident and their alleged role were put to the appellants, and they denied them. There was no infirmity in their examination, and the cited Supreme Court decisions were inapplicable.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The Court discussed and relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1, on the distinction between inquest under Section 174 CrPC and investigation of a cognizable offence.
- The appellants relied on Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145, and on Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289; Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1; and Kalicharan v. State of U.P., (2023) 2 SCC 583, but the Patna High Court held these decisions did not assist the appellants in the facts of this case.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.356 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No.337 of 2019; arising out of Udwantnagar P.S. Case No.189 of 2016; Sessions Trial No.214 of 2017.
Case Title: Bharat Mahto v. The State of Bihar; Kunwar Mahto v. The State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 324.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha.
Date of Judgment (High Court): 03.04.2026.
Trial Court Judgment and Order of Conviction: 21.01.2019, by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur at Ara.
Advocates for the Appellants: Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate; Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate.
Advocates for the State (Respondent): Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.356 of 2019); Km. Shashi Bala Verma, A.P.P. (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.337 of 2019).
Nature of Case: Criminal appeals (Division Bench) challenging conviction and sentence for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Result: Both criminal appeals dismissed; conviction and sentences affirmed; no order as to costs.
Link to judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMzNTYjMjAxOSMxI04=-X1r–ak1–ooNQe5o=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
