RASKA MURMU, Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has been convicted and sentence to R.I for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 he has been convicted to fine of Rs. 1,000/- each on both counts.

(2.) On the basis of the fardbeyan of Charan Kishku which was recorded on 11.11.2006 at about 9:45 a.m, Littipara P.S. Case No. 53 of 2006 was lodged against the appellant for committing murder of Miru Besra. During the trial the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the informant, who is husband of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.5. His daughter Dular Kishku-P.W.1 and son-in-law Saheb Ram Hembram-P.W.3 have also been examined by the prosecution to prove the charge against the appellant.

(3.) In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that in the morning at about 7:00 a.m a panchayati was going on in the courtyard of his house in which his wife, daughter and son-in-law were present. Several villagers, namely, Hopna Hembrom, Shamu Murmu, Polis Murmu and Lilu Murmu etc. were also present in the panchayati. While the meeting was going on the accused-appellant sneaked to his house and brought one iron hasua (kaida) and assaulted his wife on her head. The accused fled away and even after search could not be apprehended by them. In his examination-in-chief, the informant has narrated a similar story about the occurrence. He has deposed in the court that about 8 days before the occurrence son of Raska Murmu had died and one Janguru had told him that his son was killed by practicing witchcraft. That was the reason the accused was nurturing a doubt that the informant's wife has killed his son by practicing witchcraft. P.W.1 and P.W.3 have also deposed in the court that they have seen Raska Murmu, who during the panchayati had sneaked inside his house and brought one iron hasua, assaulting Miru Besra on her head. They have also stated about Raska Murmu saying that Miru Besra has killed his children. The prosecution witnesses Sona Ram Kishku-P.W.4 and Lakhi Ram-P.W.7 are not the eye-witnesses. The investigating officer-P.W.6 has inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. In his cross-examination he has stated that the dead body was drenched in blood, however, he could not seize the hasua.