Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 610 (JHR)

Jagan Marandi v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2006-05-11

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2006
By Court.- The present appellant Jagan Marandi and one more accused Matal Murmu were charged for the offence under Sections 302/201 IPC and they were put on trial for the said charges. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sahebganj by his judgment dated 25.11.1998 in Sessions Trial No. 220/1997 acquitted the other accused Matal Murmu from all the charges. The learned trial court also acquitted the present appellant from the charge under Section 302 IPC but he convicted the appellant for the charge under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of four months. 2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the said conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. 3. In short the prosecution case is that the deceased Tala Marandi, who was the resident of Village Nipania within Taljhari Police Station of the District of Sahibganj and she was the sister of Kadu Marandi. Baha Soren the wife of Kadu Marandi gave information to the police that Tala Marandi was missing since the morning of 3.8.1995 and then on the said information sanha entry was made and the informant Rajendra Rai, Sub-Inspector of Police made enquiry on 5.8.1995 and then he came to know from the accused Jagan Marandi (the appellant) who was the next door neighbour of the deceased that on 3.8.1995 in the noon he had called the deceased Tala Marandi to his house and assaulted him with back portion of the Tangi on her head due to which he died because the accused Jagan Marandi suspected that Tala Marandi was a witch and his two children died due to the witchcraft of Tala Marandi. It is further stated that Tala Marandi confessed that he, after committing the murder of the deceased, buried his dead body by digging a ditch and rapped the dead body in a bag with the help of the other accused. It is further stated that on being pointed out by the accused Jagan Marandi the dead body of the deceased was recovered in presence of Raj Kumar the Block Development Officer of Taljhari, which was rapped in a bag. 4. In order to establish the charges altogether 9 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. It is further stated that on being pointed out by the accused Jagan Marandi the dead body of the deceased was recovered in presence of Raj Kumar the Block Development Officer of Taljhari, which was rapped in a bag. 4. In order to establish the charges altogether 9 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. But as it appears that out of those nine witnesses except PW6 i.e. the B.D.O. and PW-9 the Investigating Officer, all other witnesses were declared to be hostile as they did not support the case of the prosecution. 5. The learned trial court only on the basis of the evidence of PW-6 and PW-9 convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him thereunder on the ground that he pointed out to the Investigating Officer and on his pointing out the dead body of the deceased was recovered. 6. It is surprising that PW-6, i.e. the B.D.O. and PW-9 the Investigating Officer though had stated in their evidence that the present appellant confessed his guilt of commission of murder of the deceased by means of Tangi but this part of the evidence was not accepted by the trial court and the appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC but curiously enough, even then on the same set of the evidence and on the same very statement of those two witnesses the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 201 IPC. There is nothing on the record to show that the dead body of the deceased was identified to be the dead body of Tala Marandi. Even the informant PW-3, who has been declared hostile, has stated that she did not know as to whether Tala Marandi was alive or dead and, therefore, in my view, on the basis of the evidence of the Block Development Officer and of the Investigating Officer the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant for the said charge and, as such, the said conviction and sentence, passed by the trial court against the appellant cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant is hereby set aside. The learned trial court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant for the said charge and, as such, the said conviction and sentence, passed by the trial court against the appellant cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.