JAY RAM HEMBRAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment of conviction dated 11th July, 2003 and order of sentence dated 14th July, 2003 passed by Shri Ravindra Prasad Ravi, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.C. No. 318 of 1996 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/ 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. The prosecution case is brief is that P.W.4-Sua Ram Hembram lodged a Fardbayan at 20.45 hours on 28.4.1996 before the police that after taking food along with his wife Somi Hembram at about 5 p.m. he was going by cycle along with Shambhu Hembram and Pandu Hembram towards Dalma Forest for hunting. His wife remained in the house. After going at some distance from the house, his neighbours Jay Ram Hembram and Dibu Ram Hembram stopped him and told that they will not allow him to go as the informant and his wife have practiced witch craft on his brother due to which his brother died. Then the informant returned to his house. On his return, the appellants entered into the house and assaulted the wife of the informant with the wooden leg of cot on her head. The informant wanted to save her but he was also assaulted by them on his head and back due to which he fell down and started raising alarm. Thereafter appellant Jay Ram Hembram assaulted his wife with leg of the cot due to which she sustained bleeding injury and fell down. On this, the appellants fled away. Appellant Jay Ram Hembram pushed him and appellant Dibu Ram Hembram was exhorting to kill the informant saying that the informant and his wife were witch. The informant reached in the house of P.W. 9 and told him about the occurrence then he returned to his house along with co-villagers and found his wife dead. The cause of incident was that about 4 months back the brother of appellant No. 1 & 3 died due to illness but they called the informant and his wife as witch.

(2.) Mr. A.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W. 4 informant, projected by the prosecution, cannot be believed as an eye-witness. No injury said to have been sustained, has been proved. His conduct is also not natural. The appellants will not bring him home to witness the occurrence. He further submitted that the appellant No. 1 has remained in jail for about 12 years and the appellant No. 2 & 3 have remained in jail for about 9 years.

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