Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1615 of 2017
[Against the Judgment of conviction
dated 15.6.2017 and order of
sentence dated 22.6.2017 passed by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 191 of
2013].
Sirnus Baa, son of Raitiya Baa, resident of village- Haldibera, P.O.
Simdega, P.S. Simdega, District- Simdega, Jharkhand.
............APPELLANT
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ............RESPONDENT
......
For the Appellant : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Awinash Akhauri and
Aditee Dongrawat, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Moti Gope, A.P.P.
......
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
JUDGMENT
By Court:
(Dated: 30.09.2024)
This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 15.6.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.6.2017
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions
Trial No. 191 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having
been found guilty of charge under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (DAAIN)
Practices Act, 1999 and has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
under Section 302 IPC and other sentences for the other offences.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire
case is based on the testimony of the sole eye witness i.e. P.W. 6,
who is none but the son of the deceased. He also submits that on the
basis of the sole eye witness, it would not be proper to convict the
appellant for commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is
his contention that the motive of murder has not been spelt out. He
further argues that all the other witnesses are related witnesses. The
I.O. never seized the blood stained earth nor the murder weapon. He
also argues that the behaviour of P.W. 6 was suspicious as he had
seen his mother being attacked, but surprisingly he did not take any
step to save her.
3. Counsel for the State submits that P.W. 6 is the eye witness
of the occurrence and the natural witness as the entire occurrence
had taken place inside the compound of the house of the deceased.
He also argued that admittedly there was no outsider in the house. It
is his further contention that P.W. 1 also stated that at that point of
time, the informant was present in the house. He lastly submits that
the medical evidence also supports the ocular evidence, thus there is
no question of acquitting the appellant.
4. The FIR is at the instance of P.W.6, who is the son of the
deceased, in which he stated that his mother was tying the cattle in
the courtyard when he was also present there. This appellant armed
with a balua (a sharp cutting weapon) entered the house and
branding the deceased as a witch gave the first blow on the back side
of the neck, thereafter second blow was given on the shoulder and
the hand. The informant tried to save his mother, but this appellant
with the weapon, chased him, as a result of which, he fled to save
himself. The appellant thereafter left when the informant came and
saw his mother dead.
On the aforesaid fardbeyan, FIR being Simdega P.S. Case
No. 101 of 2013 was registered. After investigation, the police
submitted chargesheet under Sections 449, 302 IPC and Section 3/ 4
of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act against this
appellant. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charges were
framed against the appellant under three heads i.e. under Section
449, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention
of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act, 1999, as the appellant pleaded not
guilty, he was put on trial.
5. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the
prosecution had examined altogether ten witnesses, who are as
follows:-
P.W.1- Binod Soreng,
P.W.2- Silvester Kerketta,
P.W.3- Ajit Soreng,
P.W.4- Prakash Kerketta,
P.W.5- Fuljames Kerketta,
P.W.6- Silas Soren,
P.W.7- Dr. Dayanand Sarswati,
P.W.8- Ganga Dungdung,
P.W.9- Niranjan Singh, and
P.W.10- Gulshan Kerketta.
6. Several documents were also exhibited, which are as
follows:-
Ext.-1: Signature of Binod Soreng on the inquest report.
Ext.-1/1: Signature of Silvester Kerketta on the inquest report.
Ext.-2: Signature of Binod Soreng as witness of Fardbeyan.
Ext.-3: Postmortem report.
Ext.-4: Inquest Report.
Ext.-5: the Fardbeyan.
Ext.-6: Registration at the margin of fardbeyan, and
Ext.-7: Formal FIR.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of
the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence
was adduced in support of the defence by the appellant.
8. The Trial Court thereafter considering the evidences had
convicted the appellant for committing the offence as aforesaid.
9. From the evidence, we find that the entire case is based on
the evidence of P.W.6, who is an eye witness. This witness is also the
informant of this case. As per the FIR, he was present at the place of
occurrence i.e. in the house, where he was along with the deceased.
P.W. 1 is also another son of the deceased, who stated that he
went to in-laws' house few days back and was returning on that day.
He stated that though in examination-in-chief, he stated that he had
seen the occurrence as he had reached the house by then, but in
cross-examination, he stated that he was on the way when the
incident had taken place, but the fact which is important in his
evidence is that he stated that when he reached his house, he saw
P.W.6, who was present in the house. Thus, from his evidence, we
find that there is no doubt that the informant P.W.6 was in the house
i.e. at the place of occurrence when the assault had taken place.
P.W.6 is the eye witness and the informant of this case.
While deposing he stated that he was in his house on the date of
occurrence and his mother was tying the goats in the courtyard when
this appellant came with a balua (a sharp cutting weapon) and
assaulted the deceased on the back side of the neck by branding her
to be a witch. He tried to save his mother, but this appellant chased
him with the weapon, he thus fled and saved himself. He deposed
that his mother died on the spot. Thereafter, he informed about the
incident to the villagers. He reiterated that the deceased was branded
as a witch by this appellant, which caused this incident. He admitted
that on his fardbeyan, the FIR was lodged. In cross-examination, he
stated that there was no other dispute with this appellant, the dispute
was only in respect that the appellant used to call the deceased a
witch. He admitted that he was not injured in the said occurrence. He
stated that he was twenty steps away from the place of occurrence
and Binod was in another room. Thus from his examination, we find
that there is nothing to disbelieve about his presence at the place of
occurrence. He clearly stated that this appellant came with a balua
and assaulted the deceased on the back of her neck thereafter on the
back.
10. The doctor is P.W. 7, who conducted the postmortem of the
deceased. He found the following external and internal injuries on the
person of the deceased;
External Injuries:-
(I) an incised wound over back of the neck about four inch
below occiput size of wound about 4 ½ " x 3 ½" x 3 ½" with
massive bleeding and blood clots from inside wound, the
margin of the would is sharp 3rd and 4th cervical vertebra
cut,
(ii) An incised would on the right arm near right shoulder
joint- all layers skin, fascoa & muscles exposed margin of
wound is sharp and size of the wound is about 4 ½ " x 3 ½"
x 2 ½" bleeding from inside would continuing.
Internal Injury:-
Trachea sharply cut, major blood vessels also cut, bleeding
present in Trachea & Osophegus cut.
The doctor opined that the cause of death is sudden
asphyxia and hemorrhage and shock leading to cardio respiratory
failure and death. He further opined that weapon used is a sharp
cutting weapon.
11. From the postmortem report, we find that the doctor found
sharp cut injury on the back of the neck about four inch below the
ospital region, which is about 4 ½ " x 3 ½" x 3 ½". He also found
incised wound on the right arm near the right shoulder joint which is
also sharp cut and size of the wound is 4 ½" x 3 ½ " x 2 ½ ". The
internal injury suggests that the trachea was sharply cut and the
major blood vessels was also cut. This injury also corroborates the
ocular evidence wherein the P.W. 6 has stated that the first blow was
given by the appellant on the deceased on the back of the neck with
balua. The evidence of the Doctor also suggest that the death is
homicidal.
12. From the statement of P.W. 1, we further find that the
informant -P.W. 6 was present in the house. He also stated that he
had seen the occurrence, as he was returning from in-laws' house.
He also stated that with balua, on the back of the neck, the appellant
had assaulted his mother. P.W. 6 in his cross-examination, had
stated that this witness, i.e. P.W. 1 was in the house in another room.
P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10 are the hearsay witnesses. Though the
witnesses are the hearsay but they have corroborated the fact that
the assault was on the back side of the neck and they had also seen
the dead body, which also supported the medical evidence.
13. So far as the motive is concerned, P.W. 6 stated in his
fardbeyan and as a witness that his mother was assaulted just
because this appellant had branded her as a witch. In cross-
examination also, it was taken from him by defence that the appellant
used to brand the deceased as a witch and there were no other
disputes between them save and except the branding of the
deceased as a witch. Though it is well settled that in a case where
there is eye witness of the occurrence of murder, the motive looses
its force, yet in this case the motive has also been established by the
prosecution.
14. From what has been discussed above, we find that the
prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
all reasonable doubt. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellant
has rightly been convicted and sentenced by passing the Judgment of
conviction dated 15.6.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.6.2017
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions
Trial No. 191 of 2013. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the
impugned judgment is affirmed.
15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.
16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated: The 30th September, 2024.
NAFR/Anu-Cp.-3.
