Jharkhand High Court
Sohar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 November, 2021
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 767 of 2020
In
I.A. No.6090 of 2021
....
1. Sohar Paswan
2. Kadmi Devi
3. Santosh Paswan
4. Mina Devi
5. Rajesh Paswan
6. Sunita Devi
7. Jitendra Paswan .... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Radha Devi .... Opposite Parties ....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Sushant Kr. Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP
....
08/30.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned counsel for the
State.
The instant application has been filed against the judgment dated 24.08.2020 passed by the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2016 who has affirmed the judgment and order of sentence dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in Complaint Case No.334/2013, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days. Further sentenced to R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month.
It appears that a complaint case No.334 of 2013 has been filed alleging offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act on 15.06.2013. The cognizance has been taken under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act.
Accusation has been explained on 18.02.2015 and thereafter prosecution has examined the witnesses. Altogether four witnesses have been examined. C.W.-1-Munia Devi is the independent witness, C.W.-2-Hemia Devi is the Gotni of the complainant, C.W.-3-Parveen Paswan is the nephew of the complainant and C.W.-4 is the complainant herself.
After evaluating the evidence brought on record, the trial court has convicted the petitioners vide order dated 11.03.2016. Being aggrieved, an appeal has been preferred being Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2016. After re-appreciating the evidence, the trial court has sustained the conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act and accordingly, sentence has been imposed.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the incident is of the year 2013. The revisionists have suffered a lot. Further, there is no eye-witness to the incident as witnesses have stated that they have reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla. A panchayati was also held. On above basis, judgment of conviction has been objected and further prayer has been made for reducing the sentence.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment of conviction.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that there is allegation of abuse and assault. Assault part has been disbelieved by the court below and accordingly acquitted from the charge of Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Verbal abuse has been accepted and charge of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act has been held proved.
Both the court below have evaluated the evidence and finding the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act. There are materials available on record and this Court is not supposed to re- appreciate the evidence available on record, until and unless, the same is perverse. So far as sentencing part is concerned, the revisionists have surrendered in the court below on 24.09.2021. The entire family members including female members have remained in custody for about 2 ½ months.
Considering the period of custody and the length of trial, the sentencing part is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionists with a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand) each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer S.I. for 15 days.
With the above modification of the sentence, the present criminal revision and I.A. No. 6090 of 2021 stand disposed off.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/