Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 693 (JHR)

Suni Ram Hembram v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-19

P.P.BHATT, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court- This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 306/2000 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5 of the Prevention of Witch (daain) Practices Act, 1999 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302, IPC. No separate sentence was passed under Sections 3/4/5 of the Prevention of Witch (daain) Practices Act, 1999. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the Informant-Parmeshwar Hembram PW 7 (step-brother of the appellant) lodged his fardbeyan before police inter alia saying that on 29.10.1999, he along with his father (PW 3) and mother (deceased), were sleeping in the house. At about 12.30 mid night he woke up on the voice of his mother. He came out from the house and moved towards the sound of his father and mother. He thought that the miscreants were assaulting them. In this situation, he went to the house of one Shibu (not examined) and told him that the criminals are assaulting his mother and father. Then he returned to his house and waited for criminals poar a tree watching the situation. After about 10 minutes, he saw four persons came out from the house and fled away. Thereafter, he went into the house along with the villager, namely. Pran Soren (not examined) and found that his mother was lying dead with several injuries on her person. He started searching his father and saw that he was also in the injured condition. The informant asked his father about the incident on which he told that the criminals have entered into the house and after assault, they tied him with the kot and killed his mother. The informant also found that the jewellery of his mother and utensils were taken away by the criminals. It is further alleged that the reason of dispute was that the father of the informant had two wives. The appellant is the son of first wife who always used to call the informant's mother (second wife) as dain and always threatened her with dire consequences. On the alleged date of occurrence the appellant, after giving threatening to her returned to his house. It is alleged that the appellant, with the help of others, has killed the mother of the informant. On the alleged date of occurrence the appellant, after giving threatening to her returned to his house. It is alleged that the appellant, with the help of others, has killed the mother of the informant. It is further said that the informant took his father to the hospital for treatment. 3. The prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses. P.Ws. 1 and 2 simply saw the dead-body. PWs 4. 5 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. P.W 3 is the injured father of the informant and P.W 7 is the informant. P.W 8 is the Investigating Officer P.W 10 is a formal witness. P.W 9 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased. The doctor found incised wound on the scalp and fracture of frontal bone etc. which were the cause of death of the deceased and it could be done by means of sharp cutting weapon like chhura. There were other incised wounds also on the body of the deceased. The injuries on the person of the deceased were found to be simple but serious. 4. Mr. Satish Kumar Deo learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the• impugned judgment. 6. In our opinion the depositions of P.Ws. 3 and 7 are not reliable. In the F.I.R. P.W 7 inter alia said in the ferdbeyan that his father came to his house and informed about the occurrence whereas in his evidence he said that he saw the appellant and others coming out of the house and when he entered into the house he found that his father was injured and his mother was lying dead. If the informant met his father before lodging FIR he should have said in the F.I.R. that his father told him that the appellant killed his mother. But in the F.I.R.. he only expressed doubt about the appellant. If the version of P.W 7 in the F.I.R. and his deposition is to be believed then. the evidence of P.W 3 becomes doubtful P.W 3 said that the appellant killed his second wife, but he did not say that he told about such occurrence to P.W 7 Moreover the other co-accused were acquitted oh the same set of evidence. If the version of P.W 7 in the F.I.R. and his deposition is to be believed then. the evidence of P.W 3 becomes doubtful P.W 3 said that the appellant killed his second wife, but he did not say that he told about such occurrence to P.W 7 Moreover the other co-accused were acquitted oh the same set of evidence. There is nothing to show that the alleged missing ornaments of the deceased or utensils were recovered from the appellant or any other person. From the materials on record it also appears that the appellant on the one hand and the deceased. P.Ws 3 and 7 on the other hand were not on good terms and they used to quarrel between them as the appellant used to call the deceased Daain and also used to threaten her. It appears that P.Ws. 3 and 7 have suppressed the actual occurrence and have improved the case against the appellant. 7. After carefully considering the entire materials on record in our opinion the appellant deserves benefit of doubt. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The appeal thus stands allowed. The appellant is directed to be released from jail. if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.