Jharkhand High Court
Sheonath Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2022
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 684 of 2014
----
Against the judgment of conviction dated 23.07.2014 and order of sentence
dated 24.07.2014, passed by Shri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa in S.T. No. 94 of 2012.
-------
Sheonath Bhuiyan, S/o late Jangali Bhuiyan, Resident of village-Ram Kanda,
Nichlatola, P.O. P.S.-Ram Kanda, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.
.....Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ....Respondent
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P.
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
C.A.V. On 26.07.2022 Pronounced on 4/08/2022
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
23.07.2014 and order of sentence dated 24.07.2014, passed by Shri Ram Babu
Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa in S.T. No. 94 of 2012,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences
punishable under sections 302, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and also
under section ¾ of the Prevention of Witchcraft (Dain) Practices Act and has
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life till his last breath along with a
fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section 302 IPC and in default of payment
of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, rigorous imprisonment
for six months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under section ¾ of the
Prevention of Witchcraft (Dain) Practices Act and in default of payment of fine to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month, rigorous imprisonment for three
years under section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years under
section 326 IPC. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
3. The fardbeyan of Jairam Bhuian was recorded on 29.05.2011 at about
8.30 A.M., in which it has been stated that the informant were three brothers, he
being the youngest. His father Jangli Bhuian was sleeping on a cot in the
courtyard, on 28.05.2011, when at about 11 P.M.the middle brother of the
informant started assaulting his father with an axe. When the informant who was
sleeping nearby woke up he found that Sheonath Bhuian (appellant) was
assaulting his father on the neck with an axe. When the informant tried to save
his father, Sheonath Bhuian assaulted him on his hand, at which, the informant
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 684 of 2014
fled away. When the wife of the informant namely Devanti Devi came she was
also subjected to assault with the axe causing her serious injuries. The father of
the informant on account of the assault died at the spot. It has been alleged that
Sheonath Bhuian taking advantage of the confusion fled away. The reason for
the occurrence is the illness of the son of Sheonath Bhuian, which was attributed
to the deceased, who practiced witchcraft.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Ramkanda P.S. Case No. 12 of 2011
was instituted against Sheonath Bhuian for the offences punishable under
sections 324, 326, 307 and 302 IPC. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet
was submitted against Sheonath Bhuian vide Chargesheet No. 18 of 2011 dated
31.7.2011 and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court
of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 94 of 2012. Charge was framed
against the accused under sections 302, 324 and 326 of IPC and Section ¾ of
the Prevention of Witchcraft (Dain) Practices Act, which was read over and
explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of
its case.
P.W-1-Alimuddin Ansari and P.W-2-Teju Bhuian did not support the
case of the prosecution and accordingly were declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W-3-Tirasi Bhuian has deposed that the incident is of a year back and
he was sleeping when he heard a commotion that Jangli Bhuian has been
murdered. He has stated that Jairam Bhuian and his wife-Devanti Devi had also
sustained injuries. Devanti Devi had disclosed that Sheonath Bhuian had
committed the assault.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had gone to the place of
occurrence in the morning and not at night. He could not find any signs of
breaking of the door of Jairam Bhuian. He has further stated that Sheonath
Bhuian had fled away from the place of occurrence.
P.W-4-Devanti Devi is one of the injured and is daughter in law of the
deceased, who has stated that it was night and she was sleeping. She had heard
Jangli Bhuian shouting and when she came out she had seen Sheo Nath Bhuian
assaulting her father in law-Jangli Bhuian with an axe. Jangli Bhuian was
assaulted on his neck which led to his death on the spot. When she tried to save
Jangli Bhuian, Sheo Nath Bhuian had assaulted her with the tangi and she
suffered injuries on her hand. Her husband was also assaulted on the back with
the axe by Sheo Nath Bhuian. She and her husband had witnessed the
occurrence. When the police arrived, the inquest report was prepared and the
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 684 of 2014
dead body of Jangli Bhuian was sent for postmortem. She and her husband were
given treatment in government hospital.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her father in law died in the
courtyard of her house. She and Sheo Nath have separate mess. She had
immediately come to know that her father in law has died. This witness has
claimed to have seen the occurrence.
P.W-5-Babulal Baitha has deposed that he had come to know that Sheo
Nath Bhuian had committed the murder of Jangli Bhuian. He had seen the dead
body.
In cross-examination, he has stated that he had come to know about the
murder in the morning. The distance between his house and the house of Jangli
Bhuian is about 5-7 degs. Jangli Bhuian and Jairam Bhuian used to reside in the
same house. He has further stated that the house of Sheo Nath Bhuian is
adjacent to the house of the deceased.
P.W-6-Bujhawan Bhuian has stated that he had come to know that Jangli
Bhuian was murdered by Sheo Nath Bhuian. He had seen the dead body.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the house of Jairam is near to
his house.
P.W-7-Jairam Bhuian is the informant who has stated that the occurrence
is of one year three months back. It was 11 P.M. and he was sleeping in his room
along with his wife. Sheo Nath Bhuian who is his brother had overturned the cot
of Jangli Bhuian and gave him 3-4 axe blows and he died at the spot. Sheo Nath
had assaulted on the neck of Jangli Bhuian. He has further stated that he as well
as his wife were also assaulted by Sheo Nath Bhuian with axe. His father was
sleeping in front of the door and he and his wife were sleeping inside. He had
disclosed about the incident to the villagers. The police had come and an inquest
report was prepared and the body was sent for postmortem examination. His
fardbeyan was recorded, which was read over to him and he had put his thumb
impression over it. He had also put his thumb impression on the inquest report.
He has further stated that he and his wife had got themselves medically treated.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that on hearing the cry of alarm, he
was the first person to reach the place of occurrence followed by his wife. When
he reached, the accused had inflicted 2-3 axe blows. The deceased had an injury
on his neck. When he reached, his father was sleeping and when he tried to
catch the accused, he was assaulted on his back, at which, he fled away and
took shelter in another persons' house. He had stayed in the house of Teju
Bhuian for about 10-15 minutes. On a suggestion that he had gone to the house
of Bhujawan Bhuian, he had denied the same. His father was sleeping outside
the house. The weapon of assault was handed over to the police by Teju Bhuian.
4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 684 of 2014
He has also stated that he had given information about the incident to the police
in the night itself. Sheo Nath and this witness did not have any quarrel prior to
the incident. He and his wife were treated by a private doctor. The villagers had
assembled in the night itself. He has further stated that the axe was of a small
size.
P.W-8-Pachu Baitha and P.W-9-Salauddin Mian did not support the case
of the prosecution and accordingly were declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W-10-Dr. Ram Sundar Singh was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar
Hospital, Garhwa and on 29.05.2011, he had conducted autopsy on the dead
body of Jangli Bhuian and had found the following:-
(i) Laceration 6"x2"x2" on left side of neck. There was cut in neck therefore
hole was seeing. On the cut part neck muscles and blood vessels were visible on left
side of neck.
(ii) Cervical vertebra ½" cut on left side of neck-in middle region.
(iii) Laceration 1 ½ x .5 cm X 1 on left cheek 1 c.m. Outer to its angle of
mouth.
(iv) Blood scab chest upper abdomen, face and neck.
On Internal Examination:-
Laceration left side of neck 6"x2"x2" up to food pipe.
The cause of death has been opined to be shock due to hemorrhage from
injured large vessels of left side of neck and vagal inhabitation. He has proved
the postmortem report, which has been marked as Ext-1.
P.W-11-Dr. Nawal Kumar was posted at Primary Health Centre,
Ramkanda and on 29.05.2011, he had examined Jairam Bhuian and had found
the following injuries on his body:-
(i) Lacerated wound over left axilla ½"x1/8"x skin deep.
(ii) Pain in whole body and both the injuries to be simple in nature and to be
caused by hard and blunt substance.
The injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt
substance.
On the same day, he had examined Devanti Devi and had found the
following injuries on her body:-
(i) Incised wound over right hand 10"x1/2"x skin deep.
(ii) Pain in whole body.
Injury No. 1 was opined to be grievous in nature while injury no.2 was
found to be simple caused by sharp cutting weapon and hard and blunt
substance respectively. He has proved the injury reports, which have been
marked as Ext-2 and 2/1 respectively.
P.W-12-Ujair Ahmed Khan was posted at Ramkanda P.S. and on
29.5.2011, he had received an information that Sheo Nath Bhuian had committed
5 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 684 of 2014
the murder of his father-Jangli Bhuian. At this information, he had reached the
place of occurrence with the police force. On reaching, he found Jangli Bhuian
dead. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Jairam Bhuian, which has been marked
as Ext-3. He had himself taken over the investigation. He has proved the formal
FIR, which has been marked as Ext-4. He had also prepared the inquest report,
in which Teju Bhuian and Jairam Bhuian had given their thumb impression and
which has been marked as Ext-5. He had sent the injured Jairam Bhuian and his
wife Devanti Devi for medical treatment. He had inspected the place of
occurrence, which is within the jurisdiction of Ramkanda P.S. about one
kilometer on the western side of Bichhlatola in the house of the deceased. The
deceased was sleeping in a cot inside the room when the accused had
committed the murder with an axe. In the north is the house of Sheo Nath
Bhuian. In course of investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the
informant. He had also recorded the statement of Devanti Devi, Teju Bhuian,
Kalimuddin, Shahabuddin Ansari, Babulal Baitha, Vrindaban Bhuian, Panchu
Baitha and Tirasi Bhuian. He had obtained the postmortem report as well as the
injury reports. On completion of investigation, he had submitted chargesheet.
The reason for the occurrence is that the 12 year old daughter of the accused
was suffering from epilepsy and the wife of the accused had alleged that the
same was due to the witchcraft practiced by the deceased.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the axe was seized from the
place of occurrence and a seizure list was prepared. The seized axe had blood
stains but it was not sent for forensic examination. He has further stated that no
drops of blood were found from the place of occurrence to the house of the
appellant. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C., in which he has merely denied the allegations levelled.
6. Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant, has
submitted that the evidence of the witnesses suffers from material contradictions.
It has further been submitted that P.W-4 and P.W-7 claim themselves to be the
eye witnesses but on a close scrutiny of their evidence, it appears that they had
not witnessed the occurrence.
7. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P., has on the other hand relied
upon the evidence of P.W-4 and P.W-7 and stated that their evidence clearly
demonstrate that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of his
father.
8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the respective sides and have also perused the Lower Court Records.
9. The allegation against the appellant is of committing the murder of his
father with an axe and thereafter assaulting and injuring his brother and sister in
6 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 684 of 2014
law. The reason for the occurrence is the suspicion upon the deceased that on
account of his practicing witchcraft, the son of the appellant remains unwell. P.W-
4-Devanti Devi and P.W-7-Jairam Bhuian are the eye witnesses as well as the
injured witnesses as they also had to bear the brunt of fury of the appellant.
According to P.W-4, the cry of alarm of her father in law brought her outside the
room where she found the appellant assaulting him with an axe. She has also
stated about the presence of her husband at the place of occurrence. She had
suffered injuries on account of the assault committed upon her by the appellant.
The evidence of P.W-4 has been corroborated by P.W-7 who also is a victim to
the assault committed by the appellant. The evidence of P.W-4 and P.W-7 are
reliable and trustworthy and the defence has failed to unearth any contradiction
in their cross-examination. The postmortem report as well as the injury report
also leads credence to the manner of assault by the appellant upon the
deceased as depicted by P.W-4 and P.W-7.
10. The circumstances, denoted above, have been properly appreciated by
the learned trial court and there being no reasons to conclude otherwise, this
appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 4th August, 2022
Rakesh/NAFR
