Jharkhand High Court
Ruddgment Of Conwichon. Dated ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2021
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1011 of 2018
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 858 of 2018
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) Ne. 1083 of 2015
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 199 of 2019
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) Na. S84 of 2019
Ruddgment of conwichon. dated 120708028 ural the arder of sentence
ed Castrict ane Acidifianal Sessians 2.
2078 passed by the:
rs
CHEN a Sessians © INS Ne, O38 ay 2014
(DB) No. LOLT of 2018;
Im Criminal Appeal
Br ajesh Oraon, r/o villages tS 'h : i Rani Toll, PCy Ay
istrict. uml ( (harkhe anid) :
7 Appellant
In Criminal Appeal { (DB) No. 858 of 2018: .
x
>
Tetra Oraon, a/o late C Ahatrap apal Oraon, r/a village- Chipri Ran ¥
Poli, RO & PS S-Bishunpur, Dis trict-Gumia, Jharkhand
Janru Oraon, s/o late G ede Oraon, r/o vilage-C hipri Rani Toll,
. ROS PS-Bishiun pur, | District: Gumia, Jharkhand .. Appellants
in. &
cpa sepa (DB) No. 1083 of 2018 :
i
fo Aghnu Oraon, r/o. village- Chipri Rani Teli, PaO
é
runpur, District-Gumla _ . Appellant
in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 199 of 3019 -
Devendra Oraon, s/o Lathi Oraon, r/o village-Chipri Rand Toll, P.O
& PS-Bishunpur, [Nstrict-CGumia . Appellant
AND
in Criminal Appeal (DB} No. 584 of 2019 -
eatiram Graon, s/o late Mangru Oraon, r/o village-Chiori Reni
Tall, P.O & P.S-Bishunpur, [Nstrict-Chimila { (Jharkhand)
.. appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .. Respondent
{Heard through V.C on 29" June, 2021, 80° wrane,
ZO2E & ao Jub, 2021}
ba
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHERBAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
Yor the Apoellantis}) 2 Mr. M.A. Nivazi, Advocate
Mr. KL S. Nanda, Advorarte
fin Ce. Appeal (ON) Nos, YOLL & GRE af ROLE, $98 af BIE
Ss, Appeal [OER No, 199 af 26
Mr. S.D. Manda, Advocate
fie Ox. Appeal {OR} Ne. S84 of 2O29)
Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate
fin Cy. Appeal (UB) Ne. HGRA of GER}
Par the State > Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
fia D2. Appeal (RB) Nos. 1042 & SRS uf ROT
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. PP
ss Cx. Appeal {DB} Mx, L983 of BIR}
Mrs, Priva Shreshtha, Spl. PP
Pin ty. Apposd 208} Na. ESD, of 2D29y
Mr. Aseemuddin, APP
© Hs Sie, Ogpead (AH) Ws, BSE GF 2G]
dg UDGMEN .
oA ¥en G1 /OF (269 | . Pronounced on 08/0? F203}
in Sessions Case No. 89 of 2013, the < appellants are
Ned and sentenced to Ri for five years and a Ane of
me ONG
RS. 10,000 ie each count under sections 366/34 and 367/34 of
2
the Indian 'Pen al Code, RJ for ten vears and a fine of Rs. 16,.000/-
ander section 364/23 4 oof the fnidi lian Penal Code; RI for five years
and a fins of Rs.10,000/- under section 201/ 34 af the Indian Penal
Sade, and: RY for life and a fine of Rs.20,00 Of
ns
- under section
SQe/o4 of the Indian Penal Code ~ with default stipulations on
- each count. The appellants have also suffered sentence of RJ for
two months and a fine of Rs.S00/- under section 2 and RI for six
manths and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 4 of the Prevention
of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 with default stipulations ~ all
sentences are directed to run consecutively
a The appellants are in appeal under section OY4(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the fudement in Sessions Case
No. 29 of 2013,
. A young girl of 86 years and her mother were abducted
from. their how ase in the might of 12.09.2012. Sushil Oraon, the
Lied
%
sy
a
3
~
a
7
Le
2
a
a
ae
Ee
me
o
ne
aS
mn
oe
ee
ne,
92
nd
'ye
a
ie
ie
ie
ix
aS
%
%
@
Re
Py
a
tee
e
a
ee
we
informant, was not at home and the only person who Was a
witness to abduction of the prosecutrix and her mother was a8
miner child who was not produced by the prosecution im the Court.
Sadho Devi, mother of the prosecutrix was killed and a part of the
dead Poss of Sadho Devi was found near river Koyal on
20.00.8012, but that was not sent for FSL report and DNA test.
The progecutrix carie back hore 22 days afler she was abducted
frorn home and her statement under section 164 of the Code of
ew
Criminal Procedure was recorded on 04. 10.2018,
4. On the basis of the fardbeyar of Sushil Oraan which
was recorded at 04:00 PM on 14.08.2012 at village Chipri Ram
Tol, (ANTU) Gumila P.S Case No..02 of O12 was registered against
Bashnu Graon, Rai mantl Devi, Sushil T irkey and 7-8 unisnown
persons under rseotions S66, 367, 87Q and 371 af the Indian Penal
@, section 22 of the Bane ied Labou ° System (Abalition) Act,
76 and sections 25 & 26 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen
YP aS
'hea
Ravel
fResulation of Eniployment and Conditions of Service) Act, |
x
Amil Oraon, Nepal Oracn, Dev sndra Graon, Abhiram Oraon, Jahru
Or BGR, ard Pratiram Or Aor wet "re arrested from their house in the
2 ty
2S
3 oe
Rak
o> s.A8
rught of 23.09.2012 and -Tt ctru Oraon was arrested on OG.05.20)
and they suffered disclosure statements before the investigating
agy
an presence of Mukhiva Ram Prasad Baraik, On the painting
of Dev andra Oraon 3B fang was recovered "and seized In presence of
meependt ent wit nesses, but Ro was mot sent for PSL report.
Dr. Sularni Here whe cHnically examined the proasecutrix on
So
03.10.2019 rendered an opinion that the victim was habitual af
sexual intercourse and no definite opinion can be given about any
recent sexual ant.
&. After statement of the prosscuirix was recorded by the
golice the offences under sections S76(2}(g), 364 and S02 riw
section 24 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the
Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1990 were adder im the
repart, In the trial, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses tu
prove the charges frarned agains! the accused in sessions trial ~
the prosecutrix is PWS and her brother, the informant, was
examined as PWS,
&. The learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-l,
Shimla has held that the prosccutrix is reliable
witness as the defence could not impeach her
identification of skeleton of the ankle by the informant established
death of Sadho Revi, and: involvement of the accused in the
ancurrence was well established by the prosecution.
¥. The presecutrix is the only witness who has narrated
the entire episods in the Court. As a general rule the Court may act
on the testimony of single witness and there ia no legal impediment
whe
nm convicting a person on the basis of testimony of a sallary
eyewitness. Is a catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed that the edifice of section 134 of the Indian Evidence
Act is the time-honoured principle that evidence has to be weighed
and not counts d, ~The Court may record conviction of an accused
and the prosecution ear. successfully defend the judgment of
corivd sue rprovided the ev ide nce tendered by the sole eyewliness 18
of sterling worth and his testimony: dees not suffer from serigus
infirmity or any inherent improbability. A victim is the most
matural and competent witht E88 ; who can tell the Court what
happened on the fateful night, and when a crime is committec in
the eire UMASTANCES AS described by the prosecution witnesses in the
"present case the evidence of the witnesses closely related to the
vou Lot inimical to the accused cannot be. discarded on the
ground of. ere pst. In "Masaltt vs State of LLP' the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. "has cautioned that. "ynechanical rejeetion of
evidence af par 'tisan or interested witnesses on the sole aground of
relationship would invariably lead to fathure of yustice.
8. The prosecutrix has deposed in the Court that in the
night of 12.09.2012 she was at home with her mather and sister's
son, The accused assaulted and broke leg of her mother, thed her
with rope and took them away. About two kilometers away from
her village Ani] Oraom cut her mother inte 22 pieces with a tang!
and Nepal Oraon disposed her body in river Koyal. She has further
stated that Nepal Oraen had called other accused al the instance of
Abhiram Oraorn ard instigated them to sexually ravish and kul her.
She Was kept at Debragini Hills and after about 20-22 days she
j ' ceva ey ok ey enti oss
managed to escape. Qn the way home she came across €& pounce
2 Crladnat Apesel WAY No. UIl fof HOLA ond sora BRaEs
party and told them the entir s episode. She has further stated that
she was taken to the police station, examined by a doctor at
Page
Saahunpur --=-- and her statement was recorded under section
164 (of the Cade Criminal Procedure}. In her 98-ONesminaliorn
he admitted that the accused were her agnates from the adjoiming
villages and there was a land dispute with them.
9, The evidence of the proserutrix was not tested by the
ajce with reference to her statements under section LOI ar
section 164 of the Code af Criminal Procedure. Sul, Mr. M.A,
Nivazi, the learned counsel for the appellants would conter rd that
testimony of the proseoutrix in the Court is at great variance with
her staternent under section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. ® Under section 172(2) af the Code of Crimin al Pronechure
the Court can look into statement of the witmesses recorded during
the investiga sion, Sut not 8s evidence in the case. The statement of
a witness recorded under section 164 of the Code ef Crimir val
frocedure though recorded before a Magistrate cannot be put at
gar with evidence tendered by a witness in the trial. The statement
under section 164 af the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a
substantive piece of evidence and its use must remain confined to
as indicated under the Code of Criminal Procedure -- to contradict a
WILESS.
12. Paina Oraon, Dhitri Orson, Bakhi Graon, Dinesh Oraon,
Tetru Oraon and Devendra Oraon are neighbors of Paltu Dra
father of the prosecutrix} and the prosecutrix has stated that Tuti
Lohra, dog Oracn and Puleshwar Oraon were living near the house
at Nepal € Oraen (the accused). The credibility of the prosecutrix wha
stated in the Court that she raised Aulle while the accused were
taking her away is challenged on the ground that no villager not
q
even the neighbors of the prosecutrix came forward to lend support
nah
Sex weve oN ape oy ee pee bh Tee CAN Var oes EEN. TEYEVSPE ER OR gk
ka and earraherate the version of the occurrence as described by
her, But keeping in mind the background of the case why Sadho
Devi waa murdered if is not surprising that no co-villager has
deposed in the Court against the appellants and those wha gave
initial clue and inferrnation toe the palice have also resiled from
their previous statements, when they were cxamined in the Court.
il. Even then, the evidence of the prosecutrix, stand alone,
a
of
o
Si
z
Sa
ae
x,
par
a
a
mp
wy
%
54
2B
'Z.
ce
a
4
on
ek
io
rh,
ea
a
ve
St
rn
43
Sie
%
ce
a
Se
og
2
De
ss
Ze
ra
%
wh
is sufficient to hold that the appellants were invelved in| the crimes.
Va. A witness may have said semething which when
compared to testimony of other witnesses would appear
meonsistent but it is mot every inconsistency, GMISsior oF
exaggeration in the evidence of a witness which may amour to
cantradiction. Whether any omission amounts to contradiction in a
garticular context is @ question of fact. in *Tahsddar Singh vu. State
of U.P the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all omissions are
not santracintions. In *SakAhawat v. Crown" ik was observed that
eontradiction means the setting up of one statement ag LEPESl
another and not the setting up of a statement against nothing at
all, There is no inconsistency in the evidence of the arosecutrix
and the minor \ omissions in her testimony cearmot be called
contre. diction, | |
iS The learned cou nsels. for the > cappellants have
affrenuou 3 aly argued that: after SO. called return of the prosecutrix
complexion of the prosecution ease has drastically changed from
what was alleged in the First Infermation Report, and the
prosecution has failed to cst tablish genesis of the crime. Mr. M.A
Niyazi, the learned counsel chas -yeferred to the decisis in
vw State" and "Bvagirathy pe. State of ACR Lo
s the prosecution has a definite or. positive ve
Syhole ofits case and. stand on. its sown legs. In the
game Vein another plea Ww as 'raised that j there was inordinate delay
i must prove, tt
in lodging the Pirst Information Repart.
is. A Wrst Information Report is not a substantive piece of
evidence and HE may not contain the murauite detaiis of the
aecurrence ar mame of all the accused. The informant is mot an
eyewitness, he was not at hame when his mother and sister were
abducted. A glance at the fardbeyan of Sushil Oraon would
disclose that his family suspected that Amrita Kumari aged about
iS years was abducted and sold fo someone by Bashnu Oraor,
Raimantt Devi and Sushil Tirkey anc that was the reason in the
fardbeyan the informant raised an apprehension that his mother
ona
Uriendcd Agnorad MONE No, 1023 of SQLS sud susloxsys Cages
and sister were also abducted by these persons with the help of
7.8 anknown criminals. The incident of the previous night, when
Bashnu Crraon and his wife visited Nawatoll at his sister's place
where his father had stayed in the night and they tried to Impress
a
x
upon his father aru] sister that they were net involved in abduction
af his niece, is therefore relevant. Besause the informari and his
family had doubt on complicity of Bashru Oraon and his wile, they
were trying to clear the doubt. They asked his father to come to
Goratoli where the person who took away his niece to Deth:
eome arid told the informants father that Sushil Tirkey was the
person who had taken Amrita Kumari, his miece, te Delhi. By that
time it was not known te. the informant what actually had
happened after his sister and mother were abducted. Kh was only
after the accused were arrested and the prosecutrix came back
hore: her. family could TOW about the real ineident. In our
Opie, the chan ge in imiial version of the prosecution case was
miat motivated and moreover no such suggestion was given ta the
auvormant and other material witnesses on this issuc.
Soe
FS. Regarding delay in lodgt ang the First Information Kepert,
mS
we weull indicate that the main object of the First Information
Reportis to set the criminal law im motion ans te incorporate the
basic, facts s about the crime in the report. In "Kam dag and Cthers
uw Phe State of LUP™ the Hon'ble Supremes Court has observed that
the prosecution cannot be called upon to explain every hour of
delay are] a common sense view has to be taken in ascertaining
oe
whether a First Information Report was Indged after due
deliberations. {f is true that in a criminal trial First Information
Report agsurmics importance for the purpose of contradicting «
witness, but fram cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses
and, more particularly, the investigating officer Ht appears that they
vere not put te atiy question regarding delay in lodging the First
Information Report, and there is no material to suggest that the
investigating officer cormived with the informant to falsely
implicate the appellants. Moreover, after the witnesses hav
tendered evidence in support of the prosecution case nothing muci B
furns an the so called delay in lodging the First Information Report.
ae
$ SOC 2O3
Ko
Zi
a
a
or
Ka
me
ww
6,
i
i
Le
aS
ee
oat
eo
ak
ao
a
nd
Oo
see
aS
me
mA
ae
ta
ae
rd
ee
ie
6
z
a
54
ie
D
ts
iS
>
t
x
It is quite understandable that had the informant intended fo
implicate all the accused they would have been named im the
furibeyan. Given the facts and circumstances in the case, we are
satisfied that the First Information Report was not lodged alter
undue delay so as to afford scope for deliberations.
Le. The statement of the prosecutris, PWG and the
ivestigating officer regarding the place of occurrence has been
overemphasized by the defence to challenge death of Sadho Devi,
Mr. M. A. Nivazi, the learned counsel for the appellants would pick
up pieces from the statement of the investigating officer to subralt
fhat Sadhe Mevi was killed at some place about five kilometers
fram: village Chipri Rani, parts of her body were thrown into river
Koval about one kiiarneter away from | the said village and skelstun
of the sige was recovered at the river bank about seven-s sight
kilometers away from village. Chipri Rani, but contrary to that the
proseqatres has said that her mother was kdlled near cattle shade
af Nepal Graon which was about two kilometers from her house.
iv. In the first place, we need to keep in mind that place of
get
PCCITENCE ASSUMES significance wher the defence ostablishes that
change was deliber: ate and such that it weruld substantially
affect the whole prosecution story. On a careful scrutiny of the
prosecution. evidence, "and more particularly testimony of the
prosecutrix' whe has cl sary stated about complicity of the
appellants in-the oceurrence, we are of the opinion that the sa
called discrepancies regarding distance and place of occurrence do
not affect the core of the prosemution case. From the evidence of
the prosecutrix it is quite clear that the abductees were taken &5
different places and therefore there may be variation in describing
is. We also need to keep in mind that the crime was
eormmitted in a rural set up and it is not expected from wilage
bade
people whe may not urcerstand the intricacies of law to give
description of the occurrence with any mathemé atical precigion ~ a
village girl may not give accurate distance between two aces.
Suhahrao Bobade vu. State of Maharashtra"
'has held as under:
Wo
Creminel Seven {GR Se 1033 of BARE gd nmyOCIss NET
"8. Now fo the facis. The scene af qurdar is poral, fhe
wiinesses [0 HFS Case ae rustios and so thelr behavioural paler
yorptive nabie fave io be Aaiged ss Such, FRE foo
isl approaches famibar ii courts based on unreal
gSRumMpHOns about Auman conduct cenmat obviously be agnlied to
dase give fo the lethargic ways Gi # our wilages, When scanning the
evic FenGe ¢ of ie vanous witnesses we have to ifort OUPSAIVERS ne
UNCTEPSHLIES in detads, cordradictions
pa rraftias afi & EINE belishreus ip apseaniia! paris cannot miles
af the veracity of the core of the festirnony provided there is foe
impress of fruth and onnfaraygy &9 prababdiiy in the substantial fare
of tectimenty sfafiverne
PLETE
aml oo
SOs isyfp
zag on fhe fing
a0. The prosecution suffered severe jolt during the trial
when PAV1-Bigna Oraon, PW -Baleshwar Oraon and PW10-Bechan
3
Craon turned hostile. They are the co-villagers who had seen the
acensed in the evening of 12.09.2012 armed with deadly weapon
and carrying the victims. They gave statemet sts before the police
during the investigation that there was @ meet ing in the village in
which it was decided to get rid of Palbu Oraon and his wife as they
were practicing witchcraft. But these witnesses tack a positicn in
wt
Ty
KR
xe Court that they diki not make auch statements befere the
palice. This is a common phenomena in almost every criminal
trial thet the co-villagera do not support the prosecution mm the
Court. But there is mo rule 'of evidence that there must be
indepernsient witnesses to sup sport the prosecution. The seizure
witnesses also seem to helping the accused. PW2-Ram Prasad
Raraik and PW -Dhaneshw ar Oraon are the scisure witnesses wha
have deposed in the "Court that they signed blank papers in the
a of
ation: PW 3 who Ww
ro
pam
honk
%
a
ot
bow
yon
¢
fear
ws
ng
ca
eA
ea
ee
Swormen of the village were missing for sometime and he
know what happened to them. He has further stat ed that
y was recovered by the police from the forest, ; and he has
identified his signature over the selgure-memo. PWS who has also
identified his signature over the selmure-memo in the Court stated
that a fang? was reeovered from a place indicated by Devern< ira
Oraon. These witnesses have not dispt uted selsure of a tang? mM
their presence, and fi is inyportant to keep in mind that the seumure-
memo is signed by Anil Kumar Sharma, officer-in-charge 01
Bishunpur P.S arki at that time the investigating officer was all
'
afong with him. The Court may rely on the evidence of the
x
Nicer if his testimony inspires confidence to hold
that tang) was selzed from @ place shown by the accused. in "Rv.
at Cihasimend Aegiead (TY Wo, 1093 of BITS egG acahennge 2ESCs
MeCay™ the accused was identified by the witness in the presence
af the investigating officer who took note of the said fact, The
witness however could not identify the accused in Court due to
lapse of time, The testimony of the investig ating officer was held as
admissible being contemporaneous with the act of identifte ation bY
the witness,
wk. The testimony of the informant is important on the
point of identification of skeleton of the ankle which was used by
e
the prosecution to prove death of Sadho Devi, PWO,S Sushi Oraor
peage
:
PLES
is brother of the prosecuizax, He has stated in the Court that.
poe
mother was aged about &S years and her ankle was recovered from
a place sever: kilorneters away from his house ~ the an she of Fas
mother was identified through her deformed finger. He has stated
that the accused would call hig mother dain twitch}: his sister
back hame after 23. days, and: she was raped by Sumi
Baraik, PWT, Paltu Qraon is: father of the prosenutrix, His evidence
is based on the information from his daughter and hike his
daughter he has given description of the occurrence in sume detail
and. to that extent his evid sce has good corroborative value. PWS,
Yara Devi is elder sister of the prosecutrix. She has stated that
there we as a COMpTe wmmise with Bashnu and Sushil Tirkey and that
they were not invelved in the occurrence. PWS, Rajesh Oraon is a
co-villager who. has stated that he was informed about the incident
ity Oraon. PW1O and PW14 are the police witnesses whe
inp ve the material onsen | in the Court and PW1i3 is the
eviderice to support the prosecution case against the
ye
Ses There are discrepancies in the testimony of PWS, PW
and PW? regarding when and hew the prosecutrix came back
home. PWS has stated that 26 days after her abduction Sunil
'alk accompanied by 4-5 outsiders dropped his sister at hore
atid PWY has stated thet his daughter was taken te Debragim and
after about 8-10 days while a villager was bringing her home she
was handed over to the police, whereas the prosecutrix hersell has
x
erie ot yo Ca ee Mypey Re sw Nae } ght.
gaid thar she escaped after 20-22 days ard on the way nome att
6
vs
ret
Os}
pene.
pene
found the police party which took her to the police 5 tation. There is
xe xe oad, nero weds
same discrepancy alsa regarding rel ationship of the arncused with
the informant. The prosecutrix has stated that the accused are her
agnates residing in the nearby villages and there was a land
dismute with them. PW6 has said that Ani Oraon, Abbiram Oraori
and Pratiram Oraon are bis agnates buat not others. He has also
s
tated that there was land space with the accused who were not
%
Oraon are his agnates (khandan) and the others were co- villas
YAVS, the daughter of PWY,
x
stated that the accused were
fram the family of her father, and both PWY and PWS have
land dispute with the. « actused.
fee
acimitted
au. Cn the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the appedaris
have set up a plea that the initial story of the prosecution re
+:
coy ppd es ey
RAPES
ere
weed
motive for the crime that to get rid of Sadho Devi whom the
villagers perceived was practicing witrheraft cannot be said to be
Proved, and om account of « land dispute they were falsely
implicated in the case. |
ee A clear proof at mative for the crime lends additional
vee
suppart to the prosecution but absence thereof does not lead to an
my escapable conclusion that the presecution has faved to prove
invelvement of an accused in the crime. In "Ghee Shanker Sp ge
3
Erg eetae Sah Pb eve de br eeenyttts ' Sh. came f . : eiyant
State af Jharkherul'" the Han'ble Supreme Court has observed that
proof of motive constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances and
therefore ff is given the importance it deserves but ne such
umportanes can be attached to lack of proof of motive in a case
based on an eyewiiness account of the occurrence.
e can $ "4
oO. the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as 4
PR ww. Broof of motive, bowever recedes avo ihe background
int CS8SS where ye EFOLEC. AiOt FRURS LED? AN SYRMTNIOSS & BGO on a
fie Qocurfeoe. That
of fhe
bacaves if dae cout LERINY & DPROEY ae
feposieont of fe syewiisesses cones § fo het ' 3
ihe version given by dhe is cradible, absertoe of evidarice fo prove
ie motive is rendered inconsequential. Cor qweray even the 2
Proseeee succeed in eatablahing a trong Motive for pe
ee the pHenee, faut ihe evidence a Fite: SyaWHNESSes |
found unrenabls , exisfance ofa olive does on
3 a8is for comdating fig accuser. That does
Hof, Arawever mean thai proof of motive even in a case whioh rests
OP SHY SOV Hess account! does not lend simength fo fhe prosecution
ogee or footy if ; } * > Mle es
Cage OF fondly ine cauvt in as ultenate canolusron. Broo! af sapfive in
self PROMI &
such 8 Siuation cerleiniy | Pains fhe prosecidion and. supporis fhe
eye eR ioe INS es. See Saks fay ory RMoohife ¥ State : of Mah arashy 8, Mart
Shanker v State of OL and Shate of UR vu Kishangal "
a8, This is specific case of the prosecution that the accused
were calling Sadhe Devi daain fwitch}) and they suspected that
mary cattle ari children in the village have died due to witcheralt
practiced by her. On the basis of statement of the prosecution
witnesses in the cross-exsmination the accused have set up a
defence that an account of a land dispute they were falsely
wmplicated im the case. A hint of enmity in the testimony of a
witricas puts the Court on guard and we have carefully examined
x
evidences tendered by the prosecutrix and her family members.
mother were abducts doom 12.09.2032 and the re ig ne doubt that
she is a witness to brutal lalling of her mother ~- in her cross-
% o "
EET
&XAl mination she has rem ained unshaken. She he AS gaid that
mother was killed near catt le shade of Nepal Oraen which was
about bye kilometers aw ay from her house and river Koyal was just
round the corner. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has
proved motive for the crime and the defence mea of false
implication due to land dispute with the appellants has mo
substance
eis The dead body of Sadho Devi was not recovered and ta
establish her death the prosecution has relied on testimony of the
ETOSSCUIENIX and. her family members, and skeleton of an ankle. The
reed
defence has challenged that Sadho Devi is dead and that skeleton
ofthe ankle belongs te her body
28. - Mr. M. A. Neyasi, the learned counsel for the appellants
would submit that the inquest of skeleton of the ankle does nat
mention the name of Sadho Devi, there is no FSL repert to cannect
akeleton of the ankle with Sadho Dew and, moreover, the doctor
has rendered an opimion that skeleton of the ankle appears to be of
a persor af 1&-20 years of age.
ao, The law on the absence of a dead human beady to prove
muurder appeara to be quite settled by now. If there is clinching
evidence that proves that the victim has died a homicidal death,
absence of dead bedy will not by itself be fatal to a charge of
murder and there is no doubt that fartur of death can be proved
by cirouristantial evidence notwithstanding recovery of the dead
bedy or any part of it. Sir dames Campbell, C.J. has said that in a
yok
gre
charge of murder, by proof of compus delicti is meant proof of the
fantum of mourder and that the arcused committed the murder or
pets
pe
pets
or
aft
took part commission, We would refer to a case popularity
known as "Acid Gath Killer" that was of hanguig of the accused en
circumstantial evidence. dohn George Haigh beleved that
dissolving the dead body in acid svould canceal the crime. [fis said
that he had musinterpreted the Latin phrase "corpus delet!" to
riean actual human body -- corpus delieti refers to the body of
eviderice which establishes a crirne. He was a serial killer and part
of the denture ES | from remains ¢ of his last victim wae identified by
her ¢ lentist and an that basis John George Haig ay Was found guilty
vat ONS of 'Sir Matthew Hale, LCG that ~ "I
% foul id never convict any person. of murder or manslaughter, Unless
the facts were proved to be done, or atleast the brocly found dead* ~
¢
was not adopted by the Courts sin indis. arid of late in the MAMTRON
~
law. countries. The above' oft- quoted statement of J Lord Hale was
induced by two cases of the time in which after conviction the
reeds
victimt had appeared alive, one was Campden Wonder case.
Carmipden Vi W ander had vanished and 4 three in dividuals were hanged
6
Por Ris murder, 'Two-years later he appeared alive telling a story of
abduction and his Slavery in Turkey,
SQ, In the absence of corpus delicti there must be direct or
circumstantial evidence leading to the inesc apable conclusion that
the person had died and that the accused are the persons who had
OSS Eee es Rds ee any sept sean me Re en Ber seghe egy Ley ros oareio aa.
cmimatted the murder. in "Sevaka Perumal ou. Stute of FLAP' the
Way ay E3 ~ ae
Nome Supreme Court has held as under:
"3. ww MPa tial for MBFEEE if is 5 HO an a sole eoe a8 aly ar
Be F aesential inge ech any foe aS!
inp g Some ¢ CARA s may ¢
for instance "hal & sueder was cammitted and the dead he ady Was
Mowe) into flowing lca! river ar stream ar burnt out KS unlikely ihat
ihe dead Sody may be recovered. recovery of he dead body
drerefgre, 38 an abs mite necessity fo conde an ACRE, in May a
Gage Ge accus manage ig See ihel ites Rael i9
esirovedy eto Word & complete imrnunity 'to fhe gualty
Hon? Dewig Rurmshed and would ascage even when ihe offerne of
murder is oroved tral, thersiars iS fequired fo base a sonvicton
for an afence af mur
at hs ' ts
3G it t ue poseibie fo bs raced OF FEO covered Tak Ke
TAR,
;
we GaP 1S that there shoul! be mviehie and
Re
3
3
3
3
is
accepianie evidence fal ihe offerk nurder, ike any other factum
of geafh was conyy and it must be proved by check or
ofoumnsiantial ovidienne, 'alhough fhe dese body may nol be traced)
in tus case the avideriog of Ps F fo TO wo udel eafabiish ihat fhey
have seen fie dead body of fhe deceased Narramachandran in the
' ey Shy
well fare | Sraught OH 3
? ee" was faker af tha dme c
a deceased By fo offer than
reaitations fa evel hat thera is
nh $3
he wead Rady and haf the
of a3.
By
Soe
"asia BSHAS tha i the deceesed died dus in
3 ecg ef vy YER eS Arne: *
my »
syhserved as under:
yy Peek iy NA the <} Res
"28 But i those fon was fhe only
PaeNSh rest AF PREYS ay, The £ ifis naagtionary rule
sees eet ae ~ ff eo 4h wats dre .
was creafen Discovery of the dead ouy "of fe victim Searin ny
HAO
s never been considered a8 the only
mode comus defoll in munder. PRS, Very many
CASES 8 are oa such @ radure where the discover: of fhe dead ee iy as
i POSSI A Blind adherenoe fo this aid "bouy" daciine would open
ihe dear wide ope for (ay A Hess sarees roe ip ESBS eth
hyaic'! 208 of yioienes, Ha
o
aroidag fhe
ust he acdc og by.
{
or by. "cium
. OF by Bam &
> seat death ; 5 30 3
me fans. ne cicumstances rns! be af " hoening
ingly Jeading to the inference that the
Or widal death. Byer so, YS Banc
cautite cain! De sue hed ioc fey Bs sequariey abselid te groot Panter of
Qroof is seldarr iy be. hain his * dempartent wid, and absaly ihe
ty & Y Section 2 of ihe Svwidance Act,
cou? considering iesmalar
probable ral a prudent Pia
the particular cane, 3 fo act upon the
fe mfananter g
.
a feap 2 we. F SHAD S deliek or She feof inh ceath aa: by telling an a incu wmstan a Ho dedindaly feos fio fhe conclusion t at Has bean murilensd + of the ankle officer Khas stated in his formant Ahad identified skeleton of deformed finger. The doctor's marding skeleton of the ankle is of na use for thes ve Bee of t he POrSOrl iS sation test. Since the de st was not posaifle and ident xa deformed finger that it belonged to Sadhec x mm, but testimony of PWO6 inspires confidence, The tat eviciemes an death af Sadho ca Devi was fabricated pes ed for the reason that the Court was not toid that 3 g 2 3 3 2 iS Drinianed Aopnal UG} No, SOLE of 2016 suk sueiogens Vases x another person had disappeared around the same time and if is not that remains of a dead body are found on a river bank every now and then. Even more, the evidence of the prosecutrix which is almost unchallenged is sufficient to held that Sadho Devi has disd a homicidal death, and failure of the appellants to oer an acceptable explanation would close the cauntroversy on this i8SUc.
33. " another aspect of the matter which leaves no stope fer the appellants to escape from the charge of murder of Sc adho Devi is violent attack on Sadho Devi followed by her abduction by Shae Pye Yee' Fant REY ates Seas es) Slayers oy EDs any BI2 ga. sree at the accused. In "Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab' two sons ol Divan Singh were abducted by errmed-assailants fram the house af night and the next day their dead bodies were found, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ab eld that ta abductors must tell the Court Q > what | they a id with the boys after their abduction. In the present CASE: the prosecution nad pevied that in the night of 12.09.2012 Sadho Devi and her daugh ber 4 Were abd Jucted from the house arid the prosecutrix has identified 'the appellants in the Cot wrt aK the abductors | 34, The burden of pr oof i in a criminal trial is normally on the proseoution but there: 'is. "exc ephon to this general rule of burden vof prooft, The obj ect of asction 1O6 of the Indian Evidence Act is. that 4 he prosecution cannot be asked to prove a fact which was Tapas sible dor dt to unearth. Ino "State of WB. ou. Mir Mohanunend Cyne aS che Hon' 'ble Suprem e Court has observed that iW the traditiona! rules relating to burden of proof cast on the prosecution is taken to is extrermes the secety would be a casualty, It was a case of abduction and mrurder of a businessman xt wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"35. ip the praesent case, the facts Winch & ihe prosecution Broved unoluding {he prodanned infendos of fe arcused whan consigensd d7 fhe light of the prosinniy of firne veithin wie ihe ViCHNY Bt istained feial injunes and the proximity of the place within witch: ihe dead bocly was found are aviough fo draw an roferel B08 thad vietin's death was caused by ihe aame abductors. if any devdaton frun fhe wvoresaid course would fave been "Yectualiy corer avy ide abkcudors woul? know about i because such deviation would have been aspacialy within fheir knowledge. As fey refused fo stale suoh facts, ihe inferenne would stand yndishirbeant "
38. Phe coniessional staternent of the appellants and TAIN Ea vkero PRETIC 1G Urkwinad Aupest MBE Ne. JOR nf SUK and guelowens cess recovery of a tang! which was said to be the assault weapan with which Sadho Devi was cul into pieces are highly Incrimin ating materials against them,
38. The layman's assertion that "he would never have confessed unless he was guilty" is nel rece ognized under the Indian Evidence Act, [T8YS. Blackstone has characterized confessions as "weakest and most suspicious of all testimonies". In the United States of America it is well-settled that the usc of an involuntary confession at a state trial viclates the Due Process Clause of the mish fourteenth Amendment (Whitley v Steiner™}). After ther arrest the appellants suffered disclosure staterne nis and revealed that Sudhe Devi was mnurdered in their conte ssatanal statermicné Aru CYAN, Abhiram Or: 30%, Nepal, 1 Or ar, Jahru ¢ JPBON, Pratiram Oraor, Tetru Or aon. and 'Devendra Oraon GAVE QENeSIS: of the occurrence.
eh, ee.
aed ne ae A quite 'eh aberate disc lost ure: staternent the accused have disclosed several rhew facts Ow hich were TRH known. to the we officer by chat t time. 'There is no reason fo Suspect their disclosure statements hee cau se except the accused no ane » else sould have described the & atire: episode to the investigating officer on that day ~ the prosecutrix coul id escape from their clutches about 10 days afler arrest of se weral 4 semused. A remarkable featur o qeete, Read pod Geke i OSE Paatae at w we # is that the: appellants have not challenged that their corkessid mal <r aintoments were extracted by the. police under fear, enercion or by pniting pressur At no "paint in time have ihey retracted their confesatc mal sta atements and as observed by the Horvble Supreme Court the Court can lonk inte the confessional statement to unearth the real story and genesis of the crime. in. their confeasignal staternents the appellants have narrated the fin which the crime was committed. Their comessioral Shs statements cannot be used against them for proving charge ae abduction and murder but the Court can always look into that part of their disclosure statements which de not implicate them du rently and thus not hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Sandeep uv State of UP' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that ineulpatery part of disclosure statement of an x ws dl Criminal Ampoat PR Ro. 1023 of SUB and suaiqgvasr coses accused which dees not implicate him directly can be loaked inte to umeearth the truth.
ay. Uniedder section @Y of the Indian Exidence Act staterient ef an accased whether it arncurnts to cmmfession or not which to the fact discovered in consequence of the infarmation pravided by the accused while in custody is admissible in evidence. The accuser, namely, Aril Oraan, Nepal Oraon, Devendra Oraon, Abhiram Oraon, Jahru OQracn, Pratiram Cracn ' made disclosures before the investigating officer.
ae pot oe bee 4 fr LY on woh % re bes , Sena?
pes % oe ou, ines on poo ~ es Ardl Oraon has said that he can show the place where fang: was concealed and iHois the evidence af PWS that on the painting of Devendra Oraonm a fangt was recovered. There is mo requirement in used must have ise | the police te the place where a particle was. soncealed.. The recovery of a fang?
rest, an open field WY th ob BAS shes at the distance of hall kilometer south awest of vill age C Chipri 1 Rani Toli, at the instance of the acoused lends assurance to the oredibility of their confes ssi sional staternent raade before the = ny estigating officer, In "Lachman Singh v. State''* the statement made by the accused that the deac body was thrown into a ri iver w as chi allenged by the defence om the ground that this was fap "broad: & statement to lead fo any ciscovery. The Hon'ble S Supreme Court held that the accused had led to. the polices to the spot where the dex Add. body was thrown an ved, atement of the accused was admissibis Hon'ble Supreme recovery of the articles made from a place which is "oper or ancessible' to ofhers does not make the statement of the anciised inadmissilie under section @Y of the Eviderice Art, te S Fes Saeko aha Law lite Te ye. . ae wb here in "Jeet Singh the Hon'ble Supreme Court has "28. ?Rere is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the sfafement of ie accused nadmissihte # recovery of fhe arth
--
fea was made from any slece which is "anen wy agoessiile fa ofpers" Nos a fallacious pet fon Gat whan FECE vary of any inonnunating anicie was made from a place which iS OOOH OF aocessaibie fo offera, i would vitiate 1 the avidderme under section ZY of fhe evidence Ach Any ablect can be cancesied in MNOD ATS OOH OF aC cossible ofp others, For example, 8 the FoR Pag} af Sey é f Sty 18 Ceieataatl Sores Ht We, MEL vt ATR ond amalogous S8se8 ariinia is bled in ihe mai roadside ar if if is concealed beneath dry feaves iving on puidic places oF kept hides? ip a public office, the arhole would remain aut of ihe visibility of offers in no fray ciroumefances. Uni such article is cisiterred, fe bldden sisie would remain unhamgewed. The person whe hid B alone [re WS where His unt! he discloses ihat! Fact io any offer peraon. Hence, fhe oruolal question js mot wheres the piace WAS BCCENS vee io oisers or not but whelher f was ordinanly yisihie to othars. fis soy, ihen if is immaterial that the corre gated piace is ancessile io OF ES 3 oe. The place where the crime weapon Was CONe raledd hecame kriowtt to the investigating officer for the first time from the Siscinsure of the accused and, therefore, this much af the information contained in their statements would fall under the eee expression "fact discovered" under section @7 of the Incian Ewidence Act.
. a ' ie IA
0. A conungty are' under sections 366/35, SO? 34, PL/as, 202/54 and 207 / Rg of the Indian Penal omnd Cade RS _ framed ape aun ate Bash. Oraon, Sushil Tirkey, Ant! + Oraon, Nepal Oraon, De x ey andra. Oraon, Abhirarm Oraon, Jahr Oraon, Pratiram Oraon and Te tru Oraon, Separate charges under section 22 of the Bonded Le Abou yr System (Abolition) Act, 1S'é, seclions 2 25 & 36 of the inter St tate Migr erant Workmen (Regulation o of Employ rrussnt and Cord Hons of 'Service Act, 1079 and sections S& 4 oof the Prevention of Witch "(Daain} 'Practices Act, 1999 were alse fram ed against the above-named act cused, A charge under section SP H2NS of th e indian Pe enal Code was. framed against all the accused i n them ihe! e of the trial.
ai. Sushil. Nrkey was murdered "during the trial and Bashnu Oraon and Rajmanti Devi were acquitted of the charges framed against them, The learned District aru] Additional Sessions dadge-l, Gumila observed that specific allegation of rape was wy Sunil Baraik and net against the others and, accor cdinely, SS mie R POLE the appellants were acquitted of the charge under section oY ine af the Indian Penal Code. The learned District and Additional mn aa x x Sessions Judge-1, Gumila has helci that the offences under section ¢"
22 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, [976 and sections 25 & 26 of the Inter-State Migrant Werkmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 could not be proved by the prosecution ans, accordingly, the accused were acquitted of the said charges.
' is Sshalnnl Sepost MSs Ro. 1023 al BB mood aasiowege oxy s Of acquittal of the accused for wey nna
a) os Sabo poke i i a2. Prima-facie, the the charge urder section S7S{ 2g) of the Indian Penal Code does nat appear toe be sound.
a3. On Horg examined the prosecutrix and found the following:
ight 4 leet 19 inch, Teething 29 i4+d4), Axiary hair curly AP abuneley Breast well develo, oped sh aan} Yoped areaia. Puiye fair dey. cudy dark colour abundant. ination of Private Part. Hymen ruptured, adrnds hwo fi Gers fh 80 fresh iniuny no ferimeyneas, Mensfruation geviod ater fed Bours back, i MG BM OS.09. 2072. Uferus revoverted. somnal in Size. Forces vaginal eweb faken and sant is the pa Orgy of Seder Hosmial, Gura for examination for presence Joreign boy and sperm alozon soray Pals ane Xray weist adivined and sent fo Sadar Sospitel Guava for X. fay Ar rhopedic Surgeon for age cet ermination, ark of idenification- Mole on Chest on ayofine.
Sear on ary report af vaginal swab atlsctied, moeived on iE ation fo. Ser daled.. "09.10.2072 Ne received OH oH, Fe. 2092 dee. 10,2012 The xX. Fay wea sot See me "8 FADS yee SEER rel Bebe de Ry 8 og. . aish ey = byes ees $3, in "State of ALP ou. Lekh Ray'? it was held that absence "
OY spermatozoa during vaginal examination of the prosecutrix is irrelevant and a victim of sexual offence cannot be dishelleved for sternal infury en her person that re absrence of es a fee lin woof helplessness and inability to aes . Sometimes the victim is sa fermfied that she may rot sistance andl cot asequently no injury or external sign of internal rape ig: "found on her doredy. Equally trusis the Tact that Signs af rape such as redness or ir vlammation of vulva and Vaging are also not found in many cases. The reason may be madequate x personal hygiene, a chronic discha arge ame moeristruatior me of medical examination. In . Prosecution under JFOot}is} af the indian Penal Code, even if rape WAS ComuTutted by their individual overt ac is} and x tution to adduce evidence of a ~ x completed act of rape by each one of the AOU Set Nowever, in sence of a State appeal or revision by the infermant we are not SE nchned fo examine the judement of acyuttal of the appellants fer ction SYS 8 cme charge under s "2hg} of the Indian Penal Code.
SF Tyo sysatlessy das cregn ead +4 Sok gas as. Phe appellants are convicted under sec ions 266 /S4, a 34, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 ws % fs oa ee ns 6 oy ae a 7 don % Sof $f, zi "704 'nik th et ae Bi we 'set Bi ws ved * oe ved, ~ Ire wy tote oe te ai te, ob 4 iS EER we 4 tet te 49 te a eee : A a "oS Sm nr HY os te Le my tp ee " yes tal Ne ee It Loe UG os oe aeeed, ee fs aed oes G rae "2 mms E wy a eos pe Ey - i . chet ft 'ee! GH rey hw AH we N ve ws thee, Ys rly tain ' wn " ws DAY . 7 a fo nd Bel fy, ek ry he 5 ag the, . we or] $ a oped , r% oo, te te ed g i) Gh eos wl Se, Lf oe feed oa u 4 ret fot Tah, go Te oe De iy wit Kenn NF RDO ae es Spee : ; pee yee ea $ 5 Lf . wid 6 See fe Nw ors oe. me Tea "Sx oo Ss rae ts ie ee pe ey bud LG . eeeek, ee wee a et ay aR 'hd, nt = Be 3 OS i) 1, 8. 83 ROMO ew ia ge Boke es Ae ORE ty An weet ee ws re sews ae m ve ax 'ed ays £3 Fast ot SG < GS GG aE & Ban Se a Coe Ge EG fo os hea Ate Boe gee et oo th om, ei ad g oD Bs " BE Boon ge Ee = & Me we ae Se ee Ni i ca 24 oa . get Hs gs Pet at rn hee thee ay or Rs Ls ee aoe wn ER x BS We fe iH in he I aS % yet os ya Nt ~ Lewes teed hone ee piers . done o ant ~ fees te ~ .. . % 4 ww, 4 Be % u ee ined n rs a % Saad " Se po mn OR Kim, GB fe Se oe Ze BS we ee oo Be OX 7 fo mo # © we, B ve BRE ® Ss eo e a" fee ke Ty Oe es gt in ai oa a mF we eee 7 ye ge wn Me ne ran Reed ws" Ko Be ae, 23 ee Bo CH ten Sod, road Peed h3 had , deg tga ' rey gi eg ong wa am ee mB SERBS 3 Ba Zee w mi Bh nh os as oe a Q i ie me ES ° x me, wy FO RE i aeal z ws hn HB ot " os Sain Fie Aa 4 bone Br OTS mt ros oo La my Sh ee ~ "Me 3 - o Meng, OT a "ee Ww xe ee OM Sens a al ae mt ot ned yy % od batt om os w aE FS eS ote SoS ws % 2 Tw RK fi, a Wr wm, Ee," ne a me, Soo rc th. Loe zi us tow, wot my B® Ae & Ge te £4 "TR he ee Ce = my foe xy ms a 7 I x i ceed a) ye ' Seen, ~~ we me : 2 4 ga Se ene 4 xe) a nent ' " , - Bi wie eens, he Oe x St wow " Fo? ene LS a) tin, x & oan ox ,™ Se vow re yrs ch ot os ww Bt Oe Pe, ete tee. : mw & 3 tN Oy th om Cy hood z CH m % tw Ce co a § ns 7 ae Sage Ne ay UG ae SS fet Ch fe te ie $ ' o " on ¢ 4 A BS we yore od Ren mT ie ie] $3 RE ats om ot os ao sen wrt red fon, veer ~~ "s f Sent pos ae fe cs ~ fe Re Fon see ae no "te ~ IS ge wm th covet ry Ww wh wa oe) ay Me oe : iy te ko cy Be SG x fa Tes " ye ey bon "at oon a we As , win a fetes oh He roo] eo ie 4h ES x ws Moe ~ ow, Gy Oe ALS os we we ae ae a we seat oe as Nee owe one Sy ind fin Ave, = | tae we oo * * ab a ws r a3 4 a ES oe te by Soit Be ez Se ee SS a: a SS ee he en ws OY ss 2 gs on om Sp BS 3 eg! a : By, EE gm: gO io ¢ B oom & i C ~ om % SS wt a 1 Op eS ~, : a ee Les zs sed wa rm 4, 'ot ot. * al feat o Sow ~~ Bon he Sb. OFS ae BE GA pt oe ne AS y& bey book ~~ nha os ~ scorn, a] Ina ay ep anes ony mw $s Bo ee x on % BS ies cay gen ot 4 ye tare a pa ~~ vo oe see & a Mane £ So pe" Ty Sie See one tne = ---- 1 heat a Nal an a ad foes fn ? heed nn my bye aA a en fe Rx One ion ee x hee OE a3 Ve he won Lager o ein Sod , "4 we £3 SS ? OTE ok : ee A oo ty £% HG ene ae cy om a ' 5 oe we len get 4£% ay mh ee fr, On Mowe at ow Bt Oy, 0 jes Sanane-c res weed, ton sek sont rns a vet Re te 2 xe fee ia oS Oe tn FE og Fe gs me, FR ee ee | we x 7 =, te n os "eR oe O COR & wes es ant "OK oy er Saf sent Ww ns ne oe we wn a x ons Sa, TE ee SD inn an See Bete wy ee ih fh gc hu rt Bp i) Oo ~~ SS fy % "4 tm, tose B® Be Be A me = ae fe et net a eee os 4 nd ™ ee ey rr ke BB 4 fo Be 2 Boe So fe RE we mo Oe ee i 'ntoce ay 3 OR GS yy SA ie RS $3, s fee. MD OG > oi Ree Reg we lade on Sab : Sa en sped Sy prone "geod - a ed ae Gi 4 oo . YOR me my % . a, Wise " By TS Loy deb as in a Bh whee es yee "3 itty at Co be ae oe SS ao Soe Tb SD a Soe Ree OR Re ie £E3 ago gt te fad fed ~ q * ' ", os oe, a ey Mee lene Mee: the . x ee tae! 5 %, « fame ' * ee ; FG bebe re Gow & & we Se Oe Be Ry Be Ue Sas ae aa, ro tae wf, a, tS a a3 tert * " vey fhe BS Se % tt tone OE Line ME OT --s oo Og tee. Bes ape RS AD go ay . te Sot ne Me . "i as . w x roa "2 ge a oo he Sp a Sm $5 55. ae ae Sone oh We . pened, ia on . th " Fasl my QP > a » a Gk ooh Ze fy den, % ee a ct uBY "By 8 Be a Se ay * ood ek chet Se ; fone "yrs ww ea rv won wey Ho BES hy 2 9 € 8s SP By oe SB Ba OD 78 ei RRs % mm oe wt 'sag ae a oe Wh Bote "hie Jot LE wn BeOS fe BQO z to oR SM shed ¢ ap fant oy "4 os 'eo ee, aye eet a % a > om te oy Be a Re Oh Me TE a" "BS wm De i pid o%OUES oo me OG oy x S TS ee we NN bet Paes We Pe Ope pee BALE wh 'oo aa ae! pened, oe ms ¢ Nw 4 we ao toe wy 5 ve ee, RG yom ee ee A a He BS x ny po pnp pane Pont an et wet rh on ' tee Te aS occ] ip ty OD So BA gt ee Oye ose RRB et Qe pod f ont nA £3 y oe thy get in Be o we A gE ms i ae t i & hee BR BORG oan MS kS a o4 : oy tis oS To a at fond me wk rod ood ms ee we ies ne i of a te ws og o CS cy Se ots rea on we nd oe 4 ~ a coe os ben des "ay wy 4 ao to Fe ath wy He Sot 5 we Thee, ee go : otkat BO ey, FE ade cent rae ae "Lat ae we % ey meg ey Hh fot 5d ge ERE xs tee, : te BO tn es : / 5 : wre BA det Tf As ot "fp "ened fe we we os a OP Be Bo 63°, 3° Uy aot, EOS ee tes aA on eo "had ed ~ "ee at w ows wy oy ES sos 33 oS 03 i O oy nee $45 oS % Gy Bee Me a ry or om 4, wa . ay a eng r 7 ab SE a oS on ae ps a, ion feve RL ae wee BOs Stes wee : wy dot Y% shot ts aro te cB Z tee Le ts AD oe Fete xe BSS ow ry OS mY meg kA = ' "ed KA ws a Ba "Se Be Gh Se Be oe cy me : me a, Re gy as oo ee ROR ee Sk ow Bad Pas om me es ao wm ma Gb + teed 4 ood ee oe we te, geet, nw ae Se pS $e oe nm Me we pets at as Oy 3 sn gree cope ae heel larae' oe: So wee at a Ag ' oo eae Lee, wD, * tod ah, ae ae SS Lye % wee, pet Ls Net L3 rae} 3 So Ks nage voter EM io tove a on, : eee in » $e . Nene pea 4 * 3 "sy q . "pet ae te a Th gm, Ce 8 : ee Comers n @ OE & At ae hed piped i os Nat oped aeete gi heed ty eB eS os gn ve ea 03 fe Bs we Rh Be ee A a ms mo fy i} ~ 3 "Bin oP z a Ss im - eed co wes 2 Saat P "
os ay noe te Ea Mg Ae Be omic & wr 4 os La as ~ wn oy ed wo oS ~ a ioe, ye ww neg a, 7 oe LA 'a My ; ' oe "4 . wy a os ae ne oo if ee Oo we & " mw a og FE v3 'bed %, 43 a wont SE a oye yp, te 2° & & oy ie Bg eS hohe be an BS @ & & no a m1 z . , v, % Be , Y } : im ; % ied a4 sew we By Bi ee SY Se % Tt Kf stead ine ee ot Soon oe a a i oe BO go ge ., 1 2 oe » & & woh: ' mos Beg S&S % oy Si Co weet inet eA x oA ry ae On : eh at, ~ fad By Se ry de SE ode 4 Ch boat eo " te aD Ay os Snewst feces g ood :
Z U3 feat oe to ( ue oo ?
Co, A Se ns sored yon 3 nee pod My. "ad . 4 Wt hood - got ww bot ne deed spans ¢ voy Bs b nea eel oe yew a t tres pga sere, ree oe + 3 _ Lp a % os fg U ay ad. t fot at ions " , Ne " feed am vo Mh oes a as ba ped et oe an Ogee ow el ; ae Ra oft z reas o ns ge Sees * oot : wa Nak Be Nd * ae ane ? 4 wo 0%, oot bs ve oh on, gov a igh hood ae ga w Ay % re a; my acd at Le Lapel poets ww bobo tet ie wees bane ne ord wy "e bot % pooet sees fees need, * ny * et a a on ° e 4 , ee beak rea : aS 'eet ee "Ss D> ws wed he . ews ry a yet ot on Sod Aged uot 5 as grt fat ; LS a vier 0 yet rs OS oy wee ot i no ° '. : red 3 04 gee bet ry Bro. bn, be Bs pas ns % ? 4 seve f ~ 1 q Go re a Em ox, EO mm ae aA ed ae Mae deeed Snot z " a oc eed brs . ty ae ned, ie) gee V3 oe reg ie od tn Gaci ws at re waeet " bow roped i oe 7 re, an chat ne vood og AS ol Ssastual Seacal AWE Neo MELE af 2 {NS VAKTR.
mider sections & & 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daaim) Practices et A Aet, PSs, 4S, Sections 864, 366 and S47 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted belraw:
Section 383: Ridmanping or abducting i order fo murder Whoever kideaps cv abducts any person in orver that such ner SUH ney be murdered or may be so disposed of as io Re pul im gare o f hel ing murdered, shal be punished with imprisonment for fife or Agorous imprisonment # for 9 feyra which may extend fa fer years, and ahall also be ffable fo fre.
Section 88@: Kidnapping, abducting ar inducing wornan fo compel her pianisoe, efn---
Whoever ks anaes or abolgets any one with infent inat she may be campediay, or knowing i io be Nkely thet she will be compelled, io marty any person againal her wil of in anter rat she may be forced or sequined fo iN io? itercaurpe, of kreaving & lo be hkaly iat she wif be forced ar seduced fo iieyt intercaurse, shall be punished swibymprsorme ent, oF oe feet plion for a fern which mad fo an years, aisle fo Boe; and means. of SS we afinee in fils PSA), t she {xi ay or seduced » punishable a, aes sping OF boa aot in arder fo subject person SOVEP icin 2p BF ater inet Such.
pera 3 3A aay be subye Pot as fe bee pHa in danger af being sutye avery, of io the urytatural fust OF any person, ow Bg no SIG "he 2 iikely f Hab auch al be punished with f persan wil be so subjected or disposer iTS SOTUT ant of either on ene for a term APHOH may axtesid fo ne Preoatfence under section 2 156 of the. Indian "Penal Corde is bm thr Pemees, (corn pelle nee an yr woman 'to TERBETY aYiy person against her will, the offence is complete if it proved that she may be forced or seduced to eit intercourse, er, if it can be sourse WICK the prosecutrin and the learned District and nuiorial Sessions Judge-], Gumilea has held that Sunil Baraik was seed ta have sexually ravished the prosecutrix ~- the other agcused were acquitted for the charge under section 3? Oe} af \.
indian Penal Cade on that ground. The offence under section of the Indian Perial Code refers to abduction of Any PEersori veh YE ~ / fie may be put in danger of being subjected to grievous m> echon 364 of the Indian penal Carle provides that any person in order that such person may be is Si yimina) Amped GRY No 103.3. af BULS ed SRN SHTKT murdered, or, to put such person in danger of being murdered would conmrplete the offence. There is evidence of vinlent attack on Sadho Dew arki she was murdered. The prosecutrix was abducted alongwith her mother and kept In detention lor more than 20 days. Cme day she escaped from chutches of the accused when they were not there and came back home. These incidents clearly establish that the prosecutrix was also in danger of being mur 'dered by or suffering grievous hurt at the hands af the accused, If has also seme on record that the accused were calling Sadho Devi daain gvitch) and under a delusion that Sadha Devi was practicing witchcraft in the village causing death of children and cattle Sadho Devi was abducted and brutally. murdered, as. The appellants had a c] ear "object. in mind and in furtherance of common object, they committed: the crime. After murder of Sadho Devi. the y dra ak, danced and. rejoiced, togelher, The appellants were involved La pehuctis on of the pros secutrix and % yer mother who was attacked: byt hem. The fear and anxiety with which the prosecutrix must have | been undergoing were enough to act her severely ~ she has: wit nessed brutal killing of her mother. In this orlme scenarie, it was difficult for her ta rex member and recap hulate Specie role played by each accused. In "ChAeta * eo a sf 3 pes Yo CRT $ Rae Se ALP the Hort'ble: Se ipreme Court has held that sschior. SH ¢ of the indian Por val Code. Ae really intended to risel & case mM which. itis 'difficult to oa stinguis ak "between the acis af individual members of a party and prove exactly what part was played by each of the 49, In "Ruriya uw. State of Rajasthan*° the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"37. dn the cases where fia col possible fo atiibive a Ei . . " xe soph yet Sears ot apeniic mie fo e@ paricular accused, fike ihe present case, recourse fo itis provision ig appropriately made by ihe mee sation?
SO. The learned [Netrict and Additional Sessions Judge, uma has ordered that the sentences inflicted upen the appellants shall rum consecutively. In the same transactiin the sopellanis have corrimitted several offences for which they have separately ~ there are two viclims, ae Cxlaeinal Agee BHR No, UIE E of MALS aed QU aIORONS, NESTS in the peculiar facts and circumstances in the case we are 2 3 therefore mot imelined to imicrfere with tne arder of sertemee.
However, we would indicate that the sentence af Ri for Ife shall vegen we B nn pe aoent, ra Nad %y cs BG i reed o ts , "
haa oe re yw nego.
WA bene:
YY, v oo on we wt » nw wn 2 fan Sat we beng pee ms vv ye oh o pod ws pe on Y us et ".
tt th 593 ey no, be we $ Me pene.
ry x perce A start after the aoe the Hon'iNe Supreme Seurt has held as under:
"38. We may whfe gearing, deaf wih yef another dimension of Gis case argued before us, namely whether the oo can direc! ie senfence and fer senfenmes io Aun macidiveds That asec! was argued keeping in wee fhe fact 8 sopellanis Aave bean serienced O imprison nen for i dorms apart fom being awarded ime sAgonmemn for i ial cour®s direction affirmed dv fhe High Court is that the 3 m sanfences shall run conseculvely. & was conended an behalf of fhe anpellands. thateven his part ofa he direction ig mw SN AOE onde fhe grsoner is aenlenced fo undergo fo, the form senfanne awarded fo him must ri however think so. The power of ne er 'hich santana wat run és a Way of ihe janguage employed a Sect an, therebre, jegiimately direct thot: the prisoner shall "free unde: 9° the a ton semfanne before" the cempmencerantt Of AR Such &@ direction 'shat be ye SS SS geuteoty fegiiniate 'end in une wal Section 3 37 RG.
Sa. fn view of the aforess and, according sly, Criminal Appeal | {OB} No. TOL1 of qua And Oraon, Criminal Appeal (DE) No. 898 of SC Ore an arid dahru Oraon, Crirmnal Appeal (DRy Ne. 108 SS at 8: qu a ADhiram Oraon, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 199 af 2019 gua De vendra: Oraon ard Crimimal Appeal (OB) No. S84 of 801% gua Pratiram Or aon are dismissed, 83, The learned APPs have miformed the Court that the appellant, namely, Anil Qraon is in custady and the appellants, namely, Tetra: Oraon, Jahru Orraon, Abhiram Graon, Devendra Qrann and Pratirarm Greaon are on bail, on S4. Accardingly, the bail-bonds furnished by the appellants, tru. Graer and Jahru Oraon im Criminal Appeal (DE Noa. SO8 of 2018) Abhiram Oraon [in Criminal Appeal (D3) og wey "
ty food ~ "nape £4% 'aba we.
SA noe + ha os, Nea soot S18], Devendra Oraen fin Criminal Appeal (IN8) No (DE) No. af 2019] are cancelled. They shall surrender to serve the remaining P2019) and Pratiram Oran jin Criminal Appea brand, ww ANS af the judgment shall be sent to the concerned 3 3 3 3 2 3 ay Sabmisol Appart IMI Ne: IGE ah VIS and snalegens SAEs ~ Jail Superintendent, and the Court concerned for necessary action, 7 to the Court SG, Let the lower Court records be sent ts oonecrned forthwith.
i (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) self (Ratnaker Bhs SSNS SSE 3 {Rataaker Biidngra, J J me ay at Set PA ae: + hand High Court, as gx /20R 1 :
RARER Ts a 2 nanan wg