Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) The case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the Fardbayan, is that on 13.9.2002 at about 6.30 P.M. all the appellants came to the house of the informant-Bhagal Ram (P.W.-10) and took his wife-Jamuni Devi (deceased) by dragging to the house of one Rapho Bibi @ Rakho who told them that she (Jamuni Devi) is the woman who got Chanarik Paswan (father of the applleant- Ashok Paswan) killed by playing witch craft. Thereupon, the said Ashok Paswan alongwith other appellants took Jamuni Devi to a lane where appellant- Ashok Paswan slit the neck as a result of which she died.

(i) Cut injury right side of neck- 5"X4". The wind pipe was open and slit. Major vessels on right side of neck were slit open. Vertebrae were found intact.
(3) The Doctor issued postmortem examination report (Exhibit-2) with an opinion that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage, on account of the aforesaid injury which might have been caused by 'Chhura'.

Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of other witnesses. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences was taken against these appellants and also against one Rapho Bibi @ Rakho. In due course, when the case was committed to the court of session the appellants and also Rapho Bibi @ Rakho were put on trial during which prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Of them P.W. 1-Nagia Devi ( daughter-in-law of the deceased), P.W. 4-Manoj Ram (grandson of the deceased) and P.W.-10- informant- Bhagal Ram (the husband of the deceased) claimed to be the eye witnesses wherein they did testify that while they were in the house the appellants came and took Jamuni Devi-deceased alongwith them by dragging to the house of Rapho Bibi @ Rakho where she told them that she is the woman who got Chanarik Paswan (father of the applleant-Ashok Paswan) killed by playing witch craft. Thereupon, they took the deceased to a lane where the appellant-Ashok Paswan slit the neck of the deceased whereas the other appellants had caught hold of the hands of the deceased. Other witnesses P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 did not support the case and thereby they were declared hostile. After closure of the prosecution case when the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. over the incriminating evidences appearing against them, they denied.

(5) As against this, Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that evidences are there that all the appellants had come to the house of the informant and from there they took the deceased to the house of Rapho Bibi @ Rakho who told them that she (Jamuni Devi) got Chanarik Paswan (father of the applleant-Ashok Paswan) killed by playing witch craft and thereafter all the appellants took them to a lane where the appellant-Ashok Paswan slit the neck of the deceased and hence in the facts and circumstances it can easily be said that all the appellants were sharing common intention and thereby the trial court is absolutely testified in recording judgment of conviction and order of sentence which never warrants to be interfered with. (6) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that as per the testimonies of the eye witnesses P.W. 1- Nagia Devi, P.W.4-Manoj Ram and P.W.10- Bhagal Ram while they were in the house all the 4 appellants came to the house and took the deceased-Jamuni Devi with them forcibly to the house of Rapho Bibi @ Rakho who told them that she is the woman who got Chanarik Paswan (father of the applleant-Ashok Paswan) killed by playing witch craft and thereupon they took the deceased to a lane where the appellant-Ashok Paswan slit the neck and as per the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 4 the other appellants had caught hold of her hands whereas P.W.10 in his cross-examination has testified that while the appellant-Ashok Paswan slit the neck, these appellants were standing there. Thus, we do find that the witnesses are consistent on the point that it was the appellant-Ashok Paswan who slit the neck of the deceased which fact gets corroboration from the medical evidence. Further, we do find that the place of occurrence as per the testimonies of all the three witnesses P.Ws. 1, 4 and 10 is the same and thereby it cannot be said that non-examination of the Investigating Officer the place of occurrence could not be proved.

(8) It is the case of the prosecution as has been testified by the P.Ws. 1,4, and 10 that all the appellants had come to the house of the informant and took the deceased to the house of Rapho Bibi @ Rakho where it was told by Rapho Bibi @ Rakho that she does play witch craft on account of which Chanarik Paswan (father of the applleant-Ashok Paswan) died.

(9) In that event, it is quite probable that by that time the three appellants may not have been sharing the common intention to kill the deceased. Only after being told by Rapho Bibi @ Rakho about the deceased practicing witch craft the deceased was brought to a place where neck of the deceased was slit by Ashok Paswan whereas as per the P.Ws. 1 and 4 other appellants at that time had caught hold the deceased but that fact does not find corroboration from the testimony of P.W.10-Bhagal Ram as has been testified in cross-examination at para-8 wherein it has been testified that other appellants were present over there.