JAGARNATH HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5.12.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Ill, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1999, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The prosecution case in short is that Raju Soren @ Kalu Soren-informant-PW-2-eye witness lodged Fardbeyan on 24.7.1998 at about 1.20 in night that he was living with his wife Kunni Soren (deceased) in the house of Kishun Murmu and was doing his work for his livelihood. On the previous day when he was sitting in his Angan at about 6.30 P.M., the deceased was returning after washing utensils. Suddenly the appellant who happens to be the son-in-law of uncle of the informant came and said that the deceased is a witch and due to which Jiten Soren-his cousin brother-in-law died and therefore she should be killed. Then with the sword in his hand, he assaulted the deceased repeatedly on vital parts of her body due to which she fell with bleeding injuries. The informant wanted to catch hold the appellant, but he was threatened with dire consequences. In the meantime, PW-8 and PW-3 came running from inside the house. The appellant fled away with sword. Within a short time, the deceased died. Regarding the cause of incident, it was alleged that about 5-6 days prior to the alleged incident the nephew of the informant Jiten Soren aged about 16 years fell ill and died during treatment in the house. He was cremated after 3 days. The nephew of the informant Nadu Soren called him and he alongwith the appellant assaulted him, saying that his wife was witch and she has caused death of Jiten by practicing witchcraft. Thereafter the informant left his house and started living in the house of said Kishun Murmu and worked for him for his livelihood where the appellant killed his wife.

(2.) Mr. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He also submitted that the identity of the appellant is doubtful. He further submitted that the chances of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.