Jharkhand High Court
Mangal Singh Sardar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
.........
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2017 and order of
sentence dated 28.07.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Seraikella-Kharswan in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2015).
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1719 of 2017
.........
Mangal Singh Sardar, S/o Lakhu Sardar, R/o Village Chutiyakhal, P.O. &
P.S. Chowka District- Seraikella- Kharswan
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
.........
For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, AddI. Public Prosecutor
-----------
PRESENT
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
JUDGMENT
04/ 16.10.2024
By Court:
This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 22.07.2017 and order of sentence dated
28.07.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-
Kharswan in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2015, whereby the sole
appellant was convicted under section 302 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.-1, who
is the informant is not a reliable witness. In support of his
argument, he refers to the F.I.R. wherein the informant has
narrated that only after the date of incident, he was informed on
the next date that his mother was murdered by this appellant
whereas while deposing as P.W.-1, he stated that he had seen
this appellant strangulating his mother. This contradiction is
major which leads to the only inference that P.W.-1 had
developed the story and posed himself to be an eye witness,
which actually he was not.
As per him, if the statement of P.W.-1 is discarded, then
only the remaining witness who had supported the prosecution
case is P.W.-3. As per the appellant's counsel, P.W.-3 is a tutored
witness, which is evident from her deposition in paragraph-7. He
also raised a question that when the incident had taken place on
11.00 P.M. at night why this eye witness, who allegedly had seen
the occurrence in the village at night, for entire night did not
raise any alarm and had kept quite in the village.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that P.W.-3 is the eye
witness who had seen the occurrence as she was residing with
the deceased. He also submits that P.W.-1 in his evidence stated
that he had seen the occurrence.
4. Prosecution story as per the fardbeyan of the informant-
Gobardhan Singh Sardar (P.W.-1) is that informant resides in his
new house in the village, whereas his mother resides in the old
house along with P.W.-3 (niece of the informant) and other
nephews and niece. P.W.-3 informed the informant that on the
previous night, this appellant entered the house and assaulted
his mother and pressed her neck and committed her murder. The
reason for the occurrence is that the deceased was branded as a
witch by this appellant.
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Chowka P.S Case No.87 of
2014 was registered under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 of
Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act against the appellant.
6. After investigation police submitted chargesheet against
the appellant and cognizance was taken for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch
(Daain) Practices Act. Thereafter the case was committed to the
court of Sessions where charges were read over and explained to
the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section
302 IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices
Act and the trial proceeded.
7. Altogether seven witnesses have been examined in this
case, who are as follows:-
(i) P.W.-1 Gobardhan Singh Sarda, informant of this case
(ii) P.W.-2 Baidhyanath Singh Sardar
(iii) P.W.-3 Sumi Sardar
(iv) P.W.-4 Rajen Sardar
(v) P.W.-5 Lakhiram Murmu
(vi) P.W.-6 Dr. Vibhakar Kumar
(vii)P.W.-7 Rajdev Singh, Investigating Officer of this case
8. The following documentary evidence and material exhibits
were exhibited by the prosecution:-
Exhibit-1- Postmortem report
Exhibit-2- Fardbeyan
Exhibit-3 Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit- 4 Inquest report.
9. The Trial Court after completion of the prosecution
evidence examined this appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
and after hearing the parties, convicted this appellant under
sections 302 of IPC.
10. PW-6. Dr. Vibhakar Kumar is the Doctor, who conducted
the postmortem of the deceased. He found the following:-
"Average built, rigormortis present in lower limb only, abdomen
distended, greenish discoloration of both flank of abdomen. Both eyes
closed, mouth closed.
External Injuries:-
(i)Abrasion 1 c.m. x 5 c.m. 1 c.m. x 1 c.m., 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. over
right side of neck, upper part of front and 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m., 1 c.m. x .3
c.m. present over left side of neck, middle part front.
(ii)Abrasion 2 c.m. x 1 c.m., over left side of face.
(iii)Abrasion 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. over left cheek.
Internal Injuries:-
On dissection of neck, the muscle underneath are contused, back up
trachea found contused in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm with presence of
froth in lumen of trachea and congested mucosa. Internal organ
congested.
The Doctor opined that death is due to strangulation. The
postmortem report has been exhibited as Exhibit-1. Thus, from
the postmortem report is clear that the deceased died a
homicidal death and it is murder.
11. As per the prosecution witness there are two witnesses,
who claim themselves to be eye witness, one is P.W.-1 and
another is P.W.-3.
If we analyze the statement of P.W.-1, we find that in
paragraph 2, he stated that the occurrence had taken place at
night and he has seen this appellant pressing the neck of the
deceased. He also stated appellant has committed the murder of
his mother on the appellant was branding her a witch. This
P.W.-1 is also the informant. In the fardbeyan, which is Exhibit-2 it
is clearly mentioned that the informant had got information
about the death of his mother from P.W.-3, then he went to the
house of the deceased and saw her dead body. Thus, there is
major contradiction in his statement which P.W.-1 had given
before the Court and with his fardbeyan. P.W.-1 later on tried to
become an eye witness to the occurrence which as per F.I.R., he
was not. Thus, we are of the view that this witness is not at all a
reliable witness and cannot be said to be an eye witness to the
occurrence.
12. Now, the only eye witness as per the prosecution is P.W.-3
who is the niece of the informant and was residing with the
deceased. She stated that she had seen this appellant pressing the
neck of the deceased and killing her. However, she neither raised
any alarm nor informed anyone till morning. As per her
statement in the night there was no source of light. Though she
states in cross-examination that a dhibri (oil lamp) was seized by
the police, but the Investigating Officer in his statement at
paragraph 12 has categorically stated that he has not seized any
material from the house. Thus, existence of the dhibri (oil lamp)
in the house is doubtful. Though this witness has stated that she
had seen the occurrence, but in paragraph 7 she has admitted
that she has come to the Court along with informant to depose
and she is deposing as to what has been told by her maternal
uncle, who is P.W.-1. This give us an impression that this witness
may be a tutored witness. There is doubt about the credibility of
this witness and solely on the basis of evidence of this witness,
the Trial Court has convicted the appellant. It would not be
proper for us to affirm the said conviction solely on the basis the
testimony of this witness. Be it noted that all the other witnesses
have been turned hostile.
13. From what has been held above, we find that there are
genuine and reasonable doubts about involvement of this
appellant in the crime. Benefit of doubt should be given to him.
14. Considering the aforesaid, we are inclined the allow this
criminal appeal. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal stands
allowed.
15. The judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2017 and order of
sentence dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Seraikella- Kharswan in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2015 is set aside.
16. The appellant who is in custody be released forthwith if
not required in any other case.
17. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
18. Let the Trial Court record be transmitted to the Court
concerned along with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 16/10/2024
NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03.
