SOMA ODEYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Appeals are preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dtd. 22/1/2016 and order of sentence dtd. 28/1/2016 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2014, whereby and wherein the appellants have been convicted for offence under Sec. 302/34 I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of The Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000.00 each under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and to undergo simple imprisonment of 06 months under Sec. 4 of The Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act.

(2.) Heard learned counsel representing the appellants and learned A.P.P. and Spl. P.P. representing the State and perused the material available on record.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the entire conviction is based upon the testimony of P.W.-7 who is alleged to be an eye witness and daughter of both the deceased. As per the appellants, the P.W.-7 cannot be said to be an eye witness as her presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. He submits that P.W.-7 has stated that after the incident, she had fled and went to the house of her maternal uncle but the fact is that she was in the house of her maternal uncle which is as per the suggestion given by the defence while cross examining the P.W.-7. He further states that the witness P.W.-7 has failed to disclose the name of her maternal uncle, which makes her story that she went to the house of maternal uncle, doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that no blood stains were collected from the place of occurrence and neither P.W.-7 stated as to how the accused entered her house at night. All these make the presence of P.W.-7 doubtful at the place of occurrence. He further contends that except P.W.-7, all the material witnesses have been declared hostile. Even the maternal uncle of the witness had not been examined by the prosecution. He lastly submits that particular role of each of the appellants have also not been explained by this witness. Thus, these appeals need to be allowed and the appellants need to be acquitted.