Kailash Mahto vs State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State on the matter of bail of appellant-Kailash Mahto who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the accusation of committing murder of one Jitia Dhan and also making an attempt to commit murder of the informant-Pratima Dhan (P.W. 1). Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant and three others were put on trial on the said accusation but said three persons have been acquitted, whereas the appellant has been convicted on the basis of the evidence of the informant P.W. 1 whose testimony never gets corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses and that the doctor, who did autopsy of the dead body of the deceased, has not been examined and thereby it can be said that the version of the informant does not find corroboration from the medical evidence and under these circumstances, the appellant be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that it is not that the postmortem examination report has not been proved by the competent person rather it has been proved by none other than P.W. 8 who along with Dr. Aman Kumar had held postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased and that the version of the informant-P.W. 1 gets corroboration from the medical evidence and that the appellant has been alleged to have inflicted ''Dao'' injury over the abdomen of the deceased while the deceased along with his wife-Pratima Dhan was returning home on the motorcycle and thereby the appellant does not deserve to be admitted to bail. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant hereby is rejected.