Jayant Aind Son Of Antony Aind vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10062 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jayant Aind Son Of Antony Aind vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 October, 2024

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                         Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 2168 of 2017
                                      With
                         Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1451 of 2017
         [Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2017 and order of sentence dated
         20.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial
         No. 97 of 2016]
                         Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 2168 of 2017
         Jayant Aind son of Antony Aind, resident of Village Berbera, Bhantadtoli, P.O. &
         P.S. Ramgarih, District Simdega, Jharkhand
                                                 ....    .... .... Appellant
                                    --Versus--
         The State of Jharkhand                   .... .... .... Respondent
                                    With
                       Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1451 of 2017
         Kishore Kerketta son of Arnesh Kerketta, resident of Village Berbera, Bhantadtoli,
         P.O. & P.S. Ramgarih, District Simdega ....     .... .... Appellant
                                    --Versus--
         The State of Jharkhand                   .... .... .... Respondent

         For the Appellant          : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha (4), Advocate
                                           [In Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 2168 of 2017]
                                      Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate
                                      Mr. Vishal Kumar Binay, Advocate
                                           [In Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1451 of 2017]
         For the State              : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
                                           [In Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 2168 of 2017]
                                      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
                                           [In Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1451 of 2017]

                                 -----
         PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                         SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
                                  -----
                                  JUDGMENT

         Reserved on: 16.10.2024                 Pronounced On: 21.10.2024

Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.      Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment

of conviction and sentence therefore, they have been heard together and will be disposed by the common judgment.

2. Appellants are before this Court against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act.

PROSECUTION CASE

3. Informant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. As per the fardbeyan, on 20.12.2015, the informant- Nilamani Minz was in her house with her mother-in-law, Rosaliya Minz and her children were sleeping. At about 9.30 p.m., two persons started calling out Fufu-Fufu and Bhabhi-Bhabhi and told them to open the door. She was

about to open the door, but her mother-in-law proceeded and opened the door. Thereafter, two persons barged into the house, they dragged Rosaliya Minz, branding her as witch, assaulted her and took her outside the house. Jayant held the feet of Rosaliya Minz while Juben started chopping her neck by knife. They also threatened the informant when she tried to intercede and come to her rescue. Thereafter, they asked for a gunny bag which was not acceded to. When she came out after some time, she saw pool of blood in her verandah and her mother-in-law was missing. The informant tried to search for her at the night, but could not find her and slept in her home. On 21.12.2015, she informed about the incidence to the villagers. While searching, she met one Kishore Kerketta, who told her that in the evening of 20.12.2015, Juben and Jayant had borrowed his motorcycle for going to market and did not return it. Next day, Kishore Kerketta went to the house of Juben and Jayant where he saw his motorcycle standing there with blood-stains over it. Juben told him that they had killed the daain of the village (Rosaliya Minz) and took her on motorcycle and dumped her body in a gunny bag in the Kela Ghagh Dam. Nilmani Minz along Kishore Kerketta and other villagers proceeded to Kela Ghagh Dam, but could not find Rosaliya Minz.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Nilmani Minz, Simdega, Rengarih P.S. Case No.04/2015 was registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act.

5. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and the appellants were put on trial under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act.

6. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and relevant documents were adduced into evidence which have been marked as Exhibit 1 - 12.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there is no direct eye witness to the incidence. Informant (P.W. 1) has claimed that she has witnessed the incidence, but her testimony cannot be relied as it appears to be highly unusual that after the incidence, she did not inform it about to anyone in the village. P.W. 2, P.W.3 and P.W. 4, are of the same village, but they are also not an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 3 who is neighbor has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case.

8. Learned counsel on behalf of State has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that informant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and natural witness to the occurrence as the incidence had taken place in the house. Both these appellants are named in the FIR and informant has specifically stated it was

these appellants, who had committed murder of her mother-in-law at night.

9. Homicidal death of Rosaliya Minz is objectively established by the Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 8).

External Injuries: -

i. Body was beheaded at the base of neck with incised wound 5" x 5" diameter at the base of neck.

ii. Incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x muscle deep over right sided vaginal area. iii. Incised wound ½" x ½" x muscle deep over the left sided vaginal area.

Internal Examination: -

i. All viscera of body except brain and meninges were found pale.

 ii.        Stomach was empty.
iii.        Urinary bladder was full of urine.
iv.         Uterus was small in size and atrophied.
 v.         Heart- both chambers were empty and further opined the cause of death to be

hemorrhagic shock due to above injuries which clearly shows that the death of the deceased has been found by the Doctor to be homicidal in nature which also is in consonance with the prosecution case and Ram Gyan Singh (P.W.

6).

Doctor opined that all the injuries were caused by sharp and heavy cutting weapon and were ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock leading to cardio respiratory arrest.

10. As per the informant (P.W. 1), place of occurrence was her house, which has been corroborated by the I.O. (P.W. 6). The inquest report (Exhibit 2) states the place of occurrence to be situated in the house of the deceased. Informant is the daughter- in-law and has specifically stated that appellant- Jayant Aind and one Juben had entered into the house and conjointly assaulted her mother-in-law and committed her cold-blooded murder. Blood-stained soil from the house of the informant was also seized and was sent for chemical examination to the FSL.

11. Confessional statement of Jayant Aind was recorded by police (Exhibit 5) and on his disclosure statement the motorcycle bearing registration no. JH 20B 2146, one green colored jeans full pant and blood stained knife was recovered and seized (seizure list- Exhibit 6), all of which had blood stained marks. As per the FSL report (Exhibit 9), the blood stains on all the source materials were from one and the same human female source of origin. These evidences corroborate the testimony of the informant and proves the charge against appellant- Jayant Aind. Judgment of conviction passed against him is accordingly, affirmed.

12. As far as appellant- Kishore Kerketta is concerned there is no evidence against

him that he had gone along with the co-accused and Jayant Aind in the house of deceased on the fateful night. Informant who is direct eye witness to the incidence, has not named this appellant to be involved in any manner. He has been roped into the case only on the allegation that he had lent his motorcycle to the principal accused. It has not been disputed that the said motorcycle belongs to him. But even if it is assumed to be true that the said motorcycle was of the appellant- Kishore Kerketta, no offence will be made out against him unless there is some evidence that he had conspired with the principal accused. The only allegation is that on the morning he had lent the motor cycle to the Jayant Aind. In the absence of any charge of criminal conspiracy or any evidence to that effect, conviction of this appellant is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside.

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 2168 of 2017 stands dismissed. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1451 of 2017 is allowed.

Appellant- Kishore Kerketta is on bail, his sureties are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond.

Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.

                                                  (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)


Ananda Sen, J.        I agree.
                                                           (Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Dated, 21st October, 2024

 AFR/Anit