Jharkhand High Court
Samuel Aind vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2016
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: R.N. Verma
Criminal (Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 750 of 2008
Against the judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2006
and order of sentence dated 28.06.2006 passed by the
learned Additional Judicial CommissionerIII, Khunti,
Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.306 of 2003.
Samuel Aind, S/o Anthony Aind .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Lakhan Sharma, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Ms. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
JUDGMENT
By Court: Appellant was put on trial for committing murder of
Saniaro Mundain taking her to be the Daain. The trial court having found the appellant guilty for both the charges convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 vide judgment dated 26.06.2006 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was passed for the offence punishable under Section 3/4 of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.
2. The case of the prosecution as has been made out in the fardbeyan is that this appellant, who happened to be the cousin of the informant Sukhram Munda (P.W.6), was always identifying the deceasedSaniaro Mundain as witch at the instance of one Rao Singh Munda. On 19.10.2002, this appellant had also hurled abuses on the deceased by identifying her as witch. On 20.10.2002, at about 11.00 a.m. while the deceased by sitting under the Jackfruit tree was drying paddy the appellant came over there, made the deceased fall on the ground and then hammered down a nail in the chest of the deceased. Thereupon, the appellant after killing the deceased 2 Cr. (Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No.750 of 2008 brought the deceased to his courtyard by dragging her. Further, it has been stated in the fardbeyan by the informant that the appellant was caught hold by his brother and father and was locked in a room. Meanwhile, villagers came but they did find that the appellant after breaking open the roof of the house had fled away.
3. It appears that when information of the incident was given to the police station, one S.I., P.V. Karketta, Officerin Charge of Karra Police Station came to the village and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant on 20.10.2002 at about 7.00 p.m., on the basis of which a case was registered against the appellant as well as against one Rao Singh Munda and a formal F.I.R. was drawn. After the inquest was held on the dead body, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Chandrawati Sinku (P.W.1) who upon holding autopsy on the dead body did find following injuries on the person of the deceased:
(i) Incise penetrating wound in the mid of chest (between both breast) injury about 1" X 1/4" X 7" (length X breath X depth) penetrated thoracic part of sternum, heart, pericardium, pleura and other corresponding structures.
(ii) Back of skull - Occipital region lacerated wound and blood clot 1½" X 1/4" X 1/4"
localised swelling.
Weapon was found about 8" long. Handle part about 2". Base of weapon was having 1"
gradually tapering end part of it was 1/4".
4. On completion of investigation when the chargesheet was submitted against the appellant as well as the other accused, cognizance of the offences was taken. In due course, when the appellant and other accused were put on trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether six witnesses. Of them, P.W.2Bodga Munda, P.W.3 Surju @ Bhoya Munda, P.W.4 Anthony Aind and P.W.5Sheela Riuse Aind were declared hostile. P.W.6 the informant has testified almost in the similar manner as he had made statement in the fardbeyan. The trial court having 3 Cr. (Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No.750 of 2008 found the informant P.W.6 trustworthy, whose testimony gets corroboration from medical evidence, did find the appellant guilty. The other accused Rao Singh Muda had died during trial. Accordingly, the trial court recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid against the appellant which is under challenge.
5. Mr. Lakhan Sharma, the learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae submitted that only the informant P.W.6 has come forward to support the case of the prosecution who can be said to be an interested witness whose testimony never gets corroboration from any other witnesses and thereby his testimony is not worth reliable particularly when it appears from the cross examination that he had no occasion to see the appellant killing the deceased and that I.O. has not been examined in this case and thereby the prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence and under these circumstances, the trial court should not have recorded the order of conviction and sentence but the trial court in spite of aforesaid circumstances appearing, convicted and sentenced the appellant and thereby it committed illegality and hence the order of conviction and sentence is fit to be set aside.
6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is true that P.W.6 happens to be the sole eye witness but keeping in view his evidence and the earlier statement made in the fardbeyan, he appears to be fully trustworthy and therefore the trial court cannot be said to have committed illegality in placing its implicit reliance on his testimony when his testimony gets corroboration from medical evidence and thereby the order of conviction and sentence never warrants to be interfered with.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are in full agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the State. It be recorded that it is the case of prosecution that while the deceased was drying paddy sitting under the 4 Cr. (Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No.750 of 2008 jackfruit tree, the appellant came and made the deceased fall on the ground and hammered down one nail on the chest of the deceased as a result of which, she died. This assertion has been made by the eye witnessthe informant (P.W.6), who had also stated the same thing in his fardbeyan and thereby it can be said that his testimony gets corroboration from his earlier statement. It is true that some statement has come in the crossexamination of P.W.6 to the effect that when the deceased after killing was taking the deceased to his courtyard by dragging, this appellant came out of the house and in that event, submission was advanced on behalf of the appellant that the informant had not seen this appellant killing the deceased but if we will be taking the entire testimony given in the examinationinchief as well as the cross examination in totality, we would find that the informant (P.W.6) had seen the appellant killing the deceased and that testimony of P.W.6 fully gets corroboration from the medical evidence as the doctor did find a nail type of material inserted in the body penetrating thoracic part of sternum, heart, pericardium etc. The reason for committing offence as has been emerging from the evidence of P.W.6 is that the appellant was taking the deceased as witch.
8. Thus, we did find that the prosecution has been able to establish fully his case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence, which is hereby affirmed.
9. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) (R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 12th January, 2016 Anit/Ritesh/N.A.F.R.