Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 307 (JHR)

Jagarnath Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-29

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5.12.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-III. Jamshedpur. East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1999. convicting the appellant under Section 302. IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Raju Soren @ Kalu Soren-informantPW-2-eye witness lodged fardbeyan on 24.7.1998 at about 1.20 in night that he was living with his wife Kunni Soren (deceased) in the house of Kishun Murmu 2nd was doing his work for his livelihood. On the previous day when he was sitting in his Angan at about 6.30 p.m. the deceased was returning after washing utensils. Suddenly the appellant who happens to be the son-in-law of uncle of the informant came and said that the deceased is a witch and due to which Jiten Soren his cousin brother-in-law died and therefore she should be killed. Then with the sword in his hand. he assaulted the deceased repeatedly on vital parts of her body due to which she fell with bleeding injuries. The informant wanted to catch hold the appellant. but he was threatened with dire consequences. In the meantime, PW-8 and PW-3 came running from inside the h011se. The appellant fled away with sword. Within a short title, the deceased died. Regarding the cause of incident. it was alleged that about 5-6 days prior to the alleged incident the nephew of the informant Jiten Soren aged about 16 years fell ill and died during treatment in the house. He was cremated after 3 days. The nephew of the informant Nadu Soren called him and he along with the appellant assaulted him. saying that his wife was witch and she has caused death of Jiten by practicing witch craft. Thereafter the informant left his house and started living in the house of said Kishun Murmu and worked for him for his livelihood where the appellant killed his wife. 3. Mr. Zaid Ahmad learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He also submitted that the identity of the appellant is doubtful. He further submitted that the chances of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. Mr. Zaid Ahmad learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He also submitted that the identity of the appellant is doubtful. He further submitted that the chances of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. Mr. Zaid Ahmad submitted that PW-2 said that after death of Jiten. his brother called the deceased a witch. and a suggestion was given to this witness that for saving his brothers he falsely implicated the appellant. He further submitted that this witness said that he cannot see a person from distance. He further submitted that PW -3 though became hostile. but he also said that• he could not identify any person due to night. He also submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted the misconception about witch crafts is still continuing in the villages. Which, may be taken into consideration. He lastly submitted that the appellant is in custody for about 13 years. 4. On the other hand. counsel for the State-supported the impugned judgment. 5. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in this case. PW-1 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the deceased. He found six incised wounds on her head neck, Face, back, wrist and fingers. As per the Doctor the injuries were caused by heavy sharp cut weapon such as sword and the death was due to such injuries mainly the head injuries. PW-2 is the informant he fully supported the prosecution case. PW-3 has been declared hostile. PW-4 is a hearsay witness; PW -5 is an inquest witness and is a witness to recovery of sword and seizure of blood stained soil. PW-6 is an inquest witness and is a witness to seizure of blood stained soil. PW -8 is project as an eye witness. but it appears that she submitted that she has not seen that who has killed the deceased. PW -9 is the Investigating Officer. Even if PW -3 and 8. who are projected as eye witnesses. are kept aside. PW-2-informant who is the eye witness cannot be disbelieved. The manner of occurrence has been proved by the Doctor (PW-1). It appears that the parties are relatives. The FIR was lodged within 5-6 hours. There appears to be no reason for false implication of the appellant. who are projected as eye witnesses. are kept aside. PW-2-informant who is the eye witness cannot be disbelieved. The manner of occurrence has been proved by the Doctor (PW-1). It appears that the parties are relatives. The FIR was lodged within 5-6 hours. There appears to be no reason for false implication of the appellant. So far as identification is concerned PW-2 also said that he can see the things in front of him and he saw the occurrence from close distance. In view of such evidence and in view of fact that the parties are relatives. it is not possible to doubt the identification. 6. After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the materials on record. in our opinion the' prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. No grounds are made out for interference with the impugned judgment. In the result, we affirm the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.