Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1224 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated
03.07.2004, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC
No.3, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 214 of 2004/ 132 of 2002)
1. Santosh Kumar Verma
2. Sulochana Devi ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : None
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP
--------
06/ 28.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 03.07.2004, passed by the
learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.3, Godda, in Sessions Case
No. 214 of 2004/ 132 of 2002, whereby the appellants were convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of
Rs.500/- for each of the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of
Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 and RI for six months and
fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 4 of Prevention of
Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 and in default of payment of fine further
ordered to undergo SI for two months each and all the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.04.2002 at about 8
P.M. while the mother (deceased) of the informant was cooking then all of
a sudden some people/miscreants entered the house and gave chhura blow
to his mother. When he ran outside to seek help he found appellant No.1
who when asked for help avoided and abused the informant. The reason
behind the said incident as alleged by the informant is that prior to 4-5 days
of occurrence the brother of the appellant No.1 died and appellant No.2
alleged that the deceased killed her son by practicing witchcraft.
4. None appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. Azeemuddin,
learned APP appearing for the State fairly submits that in the instant case
the appellant No.2 has already died and appellant No.1 has served the
sentence and that might be the reason that the learned counsel for the
appellant is not interested in pursuing this case on merit.
5. Having heard the learned APP for the State and after going
through the impugned judgment and also the record of the case it appears
that notices were issued to the appellants informing them about pendency
of this case and pursuant to that a report was received by the concerned
police station indicating therein that appellant No.2-Sulochana Devi had
died on 02.03.2012. It further transpires from the record that the appellant
No.1 has already remained in custody 7 months and 21 days and the
sentence imposed by the learned trial court was RI for 3 months for the
offence committed under Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Witch (Daain)
Practices Act, 1999 and RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each
of the offence under Section 4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices
Act, 1999 and in case of default of payment of fine further imprisonment
for two months. Since the appellant did not pay the fine amount total
period of custody would come to 8 months and admittedly the appellant
No.1 remained in custody for 7 months and 21 days. This shows that he has
served the custody. Thus, accepting the submission of learned APP nothing
remains to be adjudicated in this case.
6. It goes without saying that so far as merit of this case is
concerned learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellants.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant appeal stands
disposed of.
8. Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to
the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
