Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 205 (JHR)

Ponde Hembram v. The State of Jharkhand

2010-02-03

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2010
JUDGMENT: This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.07.2002 and 30.07.2002 respectively passed by Sri B.N. Pandey, learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (W) at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.84 of 1996 corresponding to Sonua P.S. Case No.22 of 1995, G.R. Case No.365 of 1995 convicting and sentencing the appellant to R.I. for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and two years R.I. under Section 201 I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:- Morga Hembrom got a fardbeyan recorded on 19.11.1995 at about 6.00 a.m. to the following effect:- His wife Shanti Kui (the deceased) was working as maid servant and for children's birth in several houses for considerations. Three weeks earlier the wife of the appellant gave birth to a son. Three days thereafter abscess developed in the breast of his wife which could not be cured by applying Desi medicine. Then one Ojha told the appellant that such abscess was due to witchcraft done by Shanti Kui. On that the appellant scolded and threatened Shanti Kui. After sometime, he invited Shanti Kui and her husband Morga Hembrom (the informant) to his house to attend the Chhathi ceremony. The informant was about to return after taking meal and Hadia (rice bear), he asked Shanti Kui also to return. On this the appellant said that she will go after taking food. The informant returned and slept as he got intoxicated. The next day when he did not find Shanti Kui in his house, he inquired from the appellant on which he was told that she returned in the night itself. Thereafter he started searching Shanti Kui. Manki (headman of the village) was not available. When Manki came on 18.11.1995 the informant narrated the entire matter. The appellant was called in a village meeting in which he confessed that he had killed Shanti Kui and threw her dead body in the dam as she practiced witchcraft on his wife. According to the prosecution case, on such confession hair of Shanti Kui was recovered from Sarna asthal and her clothes were recovered from the back of the house of the appellant and dead body of Shanti Kui was recovered from the dam. 3. PW-1 Rameshwar Gope is a villager and PW-2 Lalchand Hembrom is Manki (head) of the village. According to the prosecution case, on such confession hair of Shanti Kui was recovered from Sarna asthal and her clothes were recovered from the back of the house of the appellant and dead body of Shanti Kui was recovered from the dam. 3. PW-1 Rameshwar Gope is a villager and PW-2 Lalchand Hembrom is Manki (head) of the village. Both of them have supported the prosecution case with regard to confession of the appellant before the village meeting as well as before the police and with regard to recovery of cloth and dead body of Shanti Kui on such confession. 4. PW-3 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem. PW-4, 5, 6 and 7, who are villagers, have been declared hostile. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the conviction on various grounds. He submitted that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubts. He also submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about 16 years by now. 6. On the other hand, Mr. T.N. Verma, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State supported the impugned conviction and sentence 7. In our opinion, the appellant deserves benefit of doubt for the following reasons:- Firstly, the prosecution case that Shanti Kui went to the house of the appellant on 11.11.1995 and she was last seen there, is not supported by any other material except the statement of the informant who died during trial and could not be examined. Moreover, it appears that on 11.11.1995 there was Chhathi ceremony in the house of the appellant. Naturally, apart from the informant and deceased other villagers must be there but no other person has been examined to corroborate the story that deceased was lastly seen alive in the house of the appellant. Secondly, there is nothing to show that the informant told any of the villager about his wife that she did not return in the night of 11.11.1995 after he returned from the house of the appellant and she was missing. The explanation with regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R. is that the informant waited for the village Manki (PW-2) who was away from the village and only when he returned on 18.11.1995, he narrated the entire incident. The explanation with regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R. is that the informant waited for the village Manki (PW-2) who was away from the village and only when he returned on 18.11.1995, he narrated the entire incident. But the natural conduct of the informant was to tell other villagers about his missing wife but there is nothing on the record to show that he told any villager that his wife is missing from 12.11.1995 for about a week i.e. up to 18.11.1995 when he allegedly narrated that his wife was missing from the night of 11.11.1995. Thirdly, with regard to confession, there are contradictory evidences. On the one hand PW-1 and 2 have supported the alleged confession whereas PW-4 and 6 have denied that there was any such confession. Fourthly, the identification of the dead body has also not been proved as upper portion of the dead body was found decomposed/liquefied and the head was missing. 8. In the result, the appellant is given benefit of doubt. His conviction and sentence is set aside and he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.