Arjun Mahli vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3523 Jhar

                                            1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 85 of 2021

           Arjun Mahli                 ... ... ...    Appellant
                                Versus
         The State of Jharkhand        ... ... Respondent
                                   ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing

For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P.

---

3/21.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda and learned P.P. Mr. Shekhar Sinha on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 4620 of 2021.

2. Appellant along with Bachhan Mahli stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 326/34, 341/34 of the IPC Section ¾ of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 by the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2017 arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 61/2017 (G.R. No. 261/2017). Both the convicts have been sentenced vide order dated 27.02.2021 in the following manner.

                 SI    offence                               Sentence
                 No.
                                                 Imprisonment                Fine       Default
                 1.    Sec. 341/34 of I.P.C.     S.I. for 01 (one) month       ....       .....
                 2.    Sec. 326/34 of I.P.C.     R.I. for 10 (ten) years     Rs.        R.I. for 06
                                                                             5000/-     (six)
                                                                             only       months
                 3.    Sec. 307/34 of I.P.C.     R.I. for 10 (ten) years     Rs.        R.I. for 01
                                                                             10,000/-   (one) year
                                                                             only
                 4.    Sec.      3   of    the R.I.    for    03   (three)
                       Prevention of Witch months
                       (Daain)       Practices
                       Act, 1999
                 5.    Sec.      4   of    the
                       Prevention of Witch


       (Daain)     Practices
       Act, 1999

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution story is not supported by any other eye witness except the victim/informant P.W. 1. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 sons of the informant are hearsay witnesses. P.W. 1 has not named her niece P.W. 5 as an eye witness in her statement recorded at the time of institution of the F.I.R. The Doctor though has found three injuries on the body of the victim corresponding to the allegations made, but he has also stated in cross examination that the injury No. 2 may be caused due to fall on sharp edge surface, but injury No. 1 may not be caused at the same time. It is submitted that the appellant did not have any intention to kill even if the prosecution story is believed and so is the statement of the Investigating Officer, P.W.

6. The Investigating Officer did not recover any tangi used for committing the offence and blood was not found on the place of occurrence when it was examined on 13th June, 2017. Defence witness has clearly stated that the appellant has been falsely implicated. Appellant is kith and kin of the victim and there is no criminal antecedent or any other prior incidence showing his long term enmity with the victim. Appellant has been in custody since 13th June, 2017, two days after the occurrence, i.e. about 4 years and 3 month by now, therefore he may be enlarged on bail. He is ready to deposit the fine amount which may be disbursed to the victim.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Shekhar Sinha has opposed the prayer. He submits that the case of the informant regarding assault by this appellant by tangi on suspicion of her practicing witchcraft has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence of doctor P.W. 4 by injury report Exhibit-2. All the injuries have been found to be grievous and inflicted by sharp weapon like tangi, therefore appellant may not be enlarged on bail.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower court records, including the period of custody of the

appellant. Upon consideration of the materials on record including the statement of the injured informant P.W. 1, duly corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 4 vide Exhibit-2 and that the appellant has not even completed half of the custody till date, we are not inclined to enlarge him on bail by suspending his sentence at this stage.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4620 of 2021 is hereby rejected.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/