Jharkhand High Court
Jibi Honhaga vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:32989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1251 of 2004
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 16.10.2003 and
Order of sentence dated 17.10.2003, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - II, Chaibasa,
in Sessions Trial No.114 of 2003 (arising in connection with
Goilkera P.S. Case No.10 of 2003, corresponding to G.R
No.118 of 2003)]
---------
Jibi Honhaga, wife of Late Ramsai Honhaga, resident of
Village Goyra, tola - Chasbari, P.S. - Goilkera, District - West
Singhbhum ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondents
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate
Mr. Harshit Ranjan Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P
---------
th
Order No.20/ Dated: 04 November, 2025
1. Heard Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned Amicus
Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala
Sharmin, learned Special P.P.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment
of conviction dated 16.10.2003 and order of sentence dated
17.10.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court - II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.114 of
2003, arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No.10 of 2003,
corresponding to G.R No.118 of 2003, whereby the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section
304(II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1251 of 2004
2025:JHHC:32989
years .
3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging
an F.I.R being Goilkera P.S. Case No.10 of 2003 against the
sole appellant. The F.I.R has been lodged on the
fardbeyan of informant namely, Songo Barjo (P.W.-2).
The brief facts of the case is that on 26.05.2003 at
about 2:00 a.m., wife of the informant had awaken the
informant and said that what was going on as someone is
calling him. After that he reached and saw that his
neighbour Ramsai Honhaga was sitting in his angan. He
asked that what happened then he said that "Uski Patni
Mar Diya Ab Nahin Bachenge, Pani Pilao". Then he
returned to his house for bringing water and when they
reached there with water, Ramsai Honhaga was lying in the
angan of Buka Barjo. The informant gave water to Ramsai
Honhaga, till then, other villagers were gathered there.
Informant saw after lighting that blood was oozing from his
hand, leg and his intestine was protruded. Then informant
brought 'Chadar' and covered the abdomen of the Ramsai
Honhaga. According to the decision of the villagers, the
father of Ramsai Honhaga was informed by sending a
messenger namely, Reno Surin. At about, 7:00 a.m., father
and brother of Ramsai Honhaga came. Ramsai also told
them that his wife, Jibi Honhaga, has assaulted him with
'Basila' when he was sleeping in night. Ramsai was alive till
then and later on he died. The villagers brought the dead
body of Ramsai Honhaga along with his wife Jibi Honhaga
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1251 of 2004
2025:JHHC:32989
to the police station and the statement of Songo Barjo was
recorded there. Songo Barjo had made his statement in
mundari language, which was translated in Hindi and
proved by Mangra Dang.
4. On the basis of said allegation, the police, after
investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against the sole
accused. Upon which cognizance has been taken and
charge has been framed on 18.07.2003 under Section 302
I.P.C and the case has been committed to the court of
Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and
claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has
examined altogether 11 witnesses.
6. P.W.-1, Mangra Dang, is the neighbour, and he has
proved the signature on the F.I.R.
7. P.W.-2, Songo Barjo, is the informant and he has
stated that the deceased, before death, has stated that the
fatal blow has been given by his wife. In his cross-
examination, he has stated that the children and the
accused were inside the house and treatment could not be
provided to the deceased due to lack of arrangement.
8. P.W.-3, Rutia Honhaga, is father of the deceased and
he has stated that on his arrival, the deceased died. In
cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no
communication with the deceased as the deceased was
unable to speak.
9. P.W.-4, Guju Honhaga, is the brother of the deceased
-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1251 of 2004
2025:JHHC:32989
and he has stated the same thing. He has been informed
regarding the fatal blow upon the deceased by his wife. He
has accepted in the cross-examination that the deceased
was not in a position to speak.
10. P.W.-5, Mako Surin, is the co-villager and he has
stated the same thing and he has also admitted that the
deceased was not in a position to speak and further, the
wife of the deceased is mentally ill.
11. P.W.-6, Ramsai Borda, is the nephew of the deceased
and he has also stated the same thing and admitted in the
cross-examination that the deceased was not in a position
to speak.
12. P.W.-7, Etwa Kandulnai, is also a co-villager and he
has been declared hostile.
13. P.W.-8, Buka Barjo, is the co-villager and he is not the
witness to the incident rather he is witness to the injury
caused to the deceased.
14. P.W.-9, Jagmohan Hansda, has also admitted that the
deceased was not in a position to speak.
15. P.W.-10, Dr. Murli Manish, is the doctor, who
conducted the post-mortem and he is witness to the injury,
caused by sharp cutting object and the death of the
deceased is homicidal in nature.
16. P.W.-11, F. X. Bara, is the investigating officer and he
has supported the investigation. He has stated that he has
seized the blood stained saree, weapon of crime and a mat,
but the said seized articles have not been sent for forensic
-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1251 of 2004
2025:JHHC:32989
examination.
17. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and the
materials brought on record, has convicted the present
appellant under Section 304(II) I.P.C and sentenced her to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Thus, the only material available against the
appellant is the evidence of P.W.-2, informant.
18. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that all the witnesses have admitted that the
deceased was not in a position to speak and as such it is
nothing, but repetition of a story, formulated by P.W.-2,
which has been repeated by each and every witnesses.
Even the statement given in the cross-examination he has
stated that the victim was not in a position to speak, the
statement of the witnesses in-chief, gets negated. So far as
the prosecution witness No.2 is concerned, the deceased
has stated nothing to him and only after giving water, he
has stated in Ho language. Further, in his cross-
examination, he has admitted that he has reached the place
of occurrence on raising hulla by the deceased, but in view
of the fact that the deceased was not in a position to speak,
the very fact that he has reached the place of occurrence
on hulla, is not reliable. Further, the children were present
in the house, as per the evidence of P.W.-2, but none of
them, have been examined even by the I.O. Thus, the
evidence of P.W.-2 cannot be relied upon.
In view of above evidence available on record, it has
-5- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1251 of 2004
2025:JHHC:32989
been submitted that virtually there is no reliable evidence,
connecting the present appellant with the crime.
19. Per contra, learned Special P.P has submitted that
there is enough material, connecting the present appellant
with the crime. The death of the deceased is homicidal in
nature and further, it was within the house. It has further
been submitted that the deceased before his death has
stated that he has been assaulted by his wife.
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
from perusal of the record, this Court finds that as per the
investigating officer, he has seized the blood stained saree,
weapon of crime and mat, but nothing has been sent for
forensic examination. The only material available against
the appellant is the eye witnesses, who have stated in their
chief that they have been informed by the deceased that a
fatal blow has been given by his wife, but the fact remains
that in cross-examination, they all have admitted that
deceased was not in a position to speak.
Only P.W.-2, in his cross-examination, has stated that
he had conversation with the deceased, but he has reached
at the place of occurrence on the raising hulla by the
deceased, but it is admitted position that the deceased was
not in a position to raise any hulla. Thus, there is enough
arena of doubt and in such doubtful condition, the
conviction of the appellant, under Section 304(II) I.P.C., is
not sustainable.
21. In view of above discussion and the materials
-6- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1251 of 2004
2025:JHHC:32989
available on record, the judgment of conviction dated
16.10.2003 and order of sentence dated 17.10.2003,
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court - II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.114 of 2003 is,
hereby, set aside.
22. The appellant is on bail, hence, she is discharged
from the liability of bail bond.
23. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
24. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 04th November, 2025
Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR
Uploaded on 07.11.2025
-7- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1251 of 2004
