BALO MAHTO AND ORS VS STATE OF BIHAR NOW JHARKHAND ON 26 APRIL 2006

Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006

Jharkhand High Court

Balo Mahto And Ors. vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 26 April, 2006

Equivalent citations: 2007 CriLJ 659

Bench: N Dhinakar, R Prasad

JUDGMENT

1. Balo Mahato, Daso Mahato and Khari Mahtwain, who are the appellants in the above appeal, were arrayed as A3, A1 and A2, in that order, before, the Addl. Sessions Judge II, Deoghar. They were charged and tried under Sections 304-B and 201, I.P.C with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. The allegation against the appellants, who, in the judgment, will be referred as A1 to A3 in the same order as they were arrayed before the Sessions Judge, is that they, in furtherance of the common intention of each other and sharing the common intention of Chandrika Devi and Biranchi Mahton, who were arrayed as A4 and A5, subjected Murli Devi to cruelty, as a result of which she died otherwise than under normal circumstances and later threw the dead body at a crematorium ground in order to screen the offence. Learned Trial Judge, while acquitting Chandrika Devi and Biranchi Mahto of the charges, found the appellants guilty and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life under section 304-B read with section 34, I.P.C and also sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C with a direction that the sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently. The present appeal is against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.

2. Murli Devi is the daughter of P.W. 9, Anup Mahto. She was given in marriage to A3 Balo Mahto about five years before the date of occurrence. Daso Mahto and Khari Mah twain are the parents of A3. After the marriage, the deceased Murli Devi was living with her husband and in-laws in village Jara and a daughter was born. On the date of incident, according to the prosecution, the child was 10 to 11 days old. The further case of the prosecution is that while the deceased was living with her husband and in-laws, she was not properly treated as she was not provided with clothes and other essential requirements. The further allegation is that A1 to A3 were asking the deceased to bring Cycle and Ox as dowry from her parents and when she did not bring those materials, she was badly beaten by the accused. On 18-5-1988, Mahru Mahto, P.W. 6, brother of P.W. 9 Anup Mahto, was proceeding to village - Bhari. On way to village - Bhari, he visited the house of Murli Devi, the deceased in the case. Murli Devi informed P.W. 6 that she is being ill-treated by her husband and in-laws for not bringing the articles required by him and his parents. She requested P.W. 6 to ask her father to meet her. On 19-5-1988, P.W. 9 Anup Mahto, on getting information about the ill-treatment of the deceased by her in-law, went to the house of the deceased and questioned Balo Mahto A3 and Daso Mahto A1 as to the whereabouts of his daughter Murli Devi as she was not in the house. Thereupon, it is further case of the prosecution, that both of them told P.W. 9 that she has left the house on the previous evening and could not be traced. A Panchayati was convened and at the Panchayat, it was decided that the accused should produce her within ten days and that if the girl is not produced, P.W. 9 can take any legal steps against the accused. P.W. 9 started searching for his daughter but could not succeed in tracing her. On 24-5-1988, he received an information that an unclaimed body is found at a Burning Ghat. He went there along with the villagers where he found the dead body and he identified the dead body to be the body of his daughter from the Tato mark and from the other articles lying near it. He went to the police station and gave fardbeyan, Ext. 2, on 25-5-1988, on the basis of which a crime was registered and investigation was taken up by P.W. 11 Shiv Kumar Ratan. Inquest was conducted and later the dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem.

3. On receipt of the requisition, P.W. 10 Dr. Kameshwar Prasad conducted autopsy on

Download PDF₹49 Download Word₹49

100% Legally Valid Format · 2026
Instant Download

0 people have downloaded this document

About this agreement

Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 Format

Need a reliable Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 for Indian use? Download this customisable legal template on Contract Easily in PDF or Word, fill in parties, dates and particulars, and execute with the attestation or stamp formalities that apply in your State.

What is a Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006?

A Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 is a ready-to-use legal template under the General Agreements collection. It sets out the roles of the parties, the subject matter, and the operative terms you must complete before signing. In India such drafts are generally read with the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and any subject-specific statute that fits the document (for example CPC/BNSS for pleadings, Transfer of Property / Registration practice for deeds, or stamp/notary rules for affidavits)—customise only what truly applies to your facts.

From the operative draft, this template typically covers points such as: “vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 26 April, 2006 Equivalent citations: 2007 CriLJ 659 Bench: N Dhinakar, R Prasad JUDGMENT 1.” “Balo Mahato, Daso Mahato and Khari Mahtwain, who are the appellants in the above appeal, were arrayed as A3, A1 and A2, in that order, before, the Addl.”

Why is a Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 Important?

Clarity of parties and purpose: Reduces disputes over who is bound and what was agreed.
Structured blanks: Forces completion of names, dates, amounts, schedules and annexures.
Risk allocation: Keeps operative clauses (consideration, duties, default, termination) visible before signing.
Evidence value: A filled, signed template is far stronger than informal chats or unsigned drafts.
Process readiness: Helps you prepare for notary, registration, filing or commercial execution as applicable.
Faster turnaround: Starts from a tested skeleton instead of a blank page.

Key Elements of the Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 Format

Title and parties: Full legal names and addresses of every side.
Recitals / background: Short context of why the document is being made.
Operative clauses: The binding promises, rights and duties.
Consideration / fees / amounts: Money, services or other exchange, if any.
Schedules and annexures: Property, equipment, claims or particulars lists.
Duration, renewal and termination: How long it runs and how it ends.
Default and remedies: What happens on breach.
Governing law / dispute route: Indian law and forum/arbitration as drafted.
Execution block: Signatures, witnesses, date and place.
Stamp / attestation notes: Complete as required in your State.

Who Should Use This Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 Format?

Individuals, firms and companies that need a practical Indian legal template.
Advocates and clerks who want a clean starting draft to customise.
Businesses standardising vendor, HR, property or litigation paperwork.

Download Your Ready-to-Use Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 Now

Get instant access to this Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 on Contract Easily. Customise the blanks, review with counsel where stakes are high, and download for execution.

Final Note

This template is a general format for convenience. It is not a substitute for advice from a qualified Indian advocate. Stamp duty, registration, court fees and attestation rules vary by State and document type—confirm local requirements before signing or filing.

Important Guidelines

Customise this Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006 to your facts: enter party names and addresses exactly as on ID or incorporation records, fill all blanks (dates, amounts, schedules), and keep operative clauses intact unless counsel advises otherwise. Confirm State stamp, notary, registration or filing rules before signing, and keep copies of the executed set. This is a general Indian legal template template—not a substitute for advice from a qualified advocate.

Supporting Documents

Documents commonly required when preparing and executing a Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006. Exact lists vary by State and receiving authority.

Photo identity proof of parties / deponent
Aadhaar, PAN, passport, voter ID, or driving licence.
When: Always, for identification and KYC.
Address proof
Aadhaar, utility bill, or other accepted address proof.
When: Usually required for notarization / filing.
Supporting title or factual documents
Prior deeds, agreements, notices, court papers, or records relevant to this template.
When: When the document relies on earlier transactions or proceedings.
Passport-size photographs
As required by the notary or filing office.
When: Often for affidavits and certain applications.
Stamp paper (if applicable)
Non-judicial stamp paper of the local required denomination.
When: Where State law requires the instrument on stamp paper.

Frequently asked questions

What is a Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006?→

It is a standard Indian legal legal template template you can customise with parties, dates and particulars, then execute or file as your facts and local practice require.

Is this template valid across India?→

The structure is drafted for Indian legal practice, but stamp duty, registration, court fee and attestation rules are State-specific. Confirm requirements where you will execute or file.

Do I need a lawyer to use this template?→

It is a strong starting point. For disputed, high-value or complex matters, have a qualified Indian advocate review the completed draft before signing.

Can I edit the wording?→

Yes—adapt particulars to your facts. Do not delete operative legal clauses without advice, as that can weaken enforceability.

What stamp paper value should I use?→

Stamp duty depends on the document type and your State. Check the local stamp schedule or ask a stamp vendor / advocate before printing.

Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006

Jharkhand High Court

Balo Mahto And Ors. vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 26 April, 2006

Equivalent citations: 2007 CriLJ 659

Bench: N Dhinakar, R Prasad

JUDGMENT

3. On receipt of the requisition, P.W. 10 Dr. Kameshwar Prasad conducted autopsy on

Download PDF₹49 Download Word₹49

100% Legally Valid Format · 2026
Instant Download

0 people have downloaded this document

Balo Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 26 April 2006

About this agreement

Supporting Documents

Frequently asked questions

Related documents