JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-2-1997 and order of sentence dated 25-2-1997 passed in Sessions trial No. 328/95/T.R. No. 12/ 95, whereby and whereunder the learned First Additional Judicial Commissioner. Khunti held the appellants guilty under Sections 302/34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo RI for six months. They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one month under Section 323 IPC but sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that Dulari Oraon (Kachchap) gave a fard beyan on 6-11-1994 at about 2.15 P.M. in Argori village before B Kullu. Officer Incharge of Khunti P.S. stating therein that on 5-11-1994 at about 6 P.M. she was lying on the bed as she was suffering from fever and her husband and her eldest daughter and younger daughter were in the house. Her son Mansa Oraon who was studying in Ranchi, had come to house on the occasion of Dipawali leave and in his favour chicken was being prepared by her eldest daughter. Her co-villagers Somra Munda. Budhu Munda and Bijla Lakra entered into her house and started searching for her saying where is the witch and we will kill her. The husband of the informant protested to such statement of these persons and there was a scuffle in between her husband and them and they dragged her husband out and threw him on the ground and all the three armed with Tangi and Farsa assaulted him. Her husband was writhing as a result of assault and when he was writhing, she and others were crying and on the sound of cry her son Mansa Oraon came to the rescue of his father and he was also assaulted. All of them out of fear, remained in the house whole night and in the next morning her son went to Police Station. Cause of occurrence is stated to be the death of the daughter of Somra Munda some days before but Somra Munda claimed that due to witchcraft played by the informant his daughter died and learning that the chicken is being prepared in the house of the informant the accused persons believed that she was offering prayer by sacrificing chicken to the ghost. On this piece of fard beyan a case was registered under Section 302/34 IPC bearing Khunti P. S. Case No. 120/94 and after investigation police submitted chargesheet. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge recorded the evidence both oral and documentary of the witnesses produced on behalf of both the sides and found the appellants guilty convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.
3. Defence has denied the allegation levelled against them and assailed the judgment on the point hereinafter to be discussed.
4. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses PW 1 is the son of the informant as well as of the deceased PW 2 is the wife of the deceased and she is the informant as well as the mother of PW 1 PW 3 Madia Kumari. She is the daughter of the informant and of the deceased PW 4 is Baili Kumari. She is also the daughter of the informant and of the deceased PW 5 is Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sandilaya who has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Jatia Kachchap. PW 6 is B Kullu, who is the I.O. of the case. P.W. 7 is Dr. Umeshwari Kumari, who has examined the injured PW 1 and PW 2.
5. PW 2 has deposed that at about 6 PM on the day of Dipawali festival she was in her house and she was suffering from fever and she was lying in her house. She further deposes that her husband and daughter were also in her house and her son Mansa Oraon (PW 1) had gone to meet his friend living near her house. She further deposes that her son was studying in Ranchi and on the occasion of Dipawali he had come to house and that is why chicken was being prepared and her daughter Baili was cooking the chicken. She further deposes that in the meantime Bijla. Somra and Budhu (appellants) came to her house and described her as a witch and started searching for her but as she was lying with fever they entered her room and assaulted her with Tangi and Lathi whereupon her husband protested them saying that she is suffering from fever and why you are assaulting her then they told her husband that you are taking her side and saying this they dragged her husband from the house and took him to a place near a Tamarind (Imali) tree. She further deposes that Somra and Budhu were armed with Tangi and Bijla was armed with Farsa. She further deposes that all the three dragged her husband out and when her daughter went to the rescue of her father and when she did not succeed then she cried out Mammi mammi. She further deposes that thereafter her son Mansa went to the rescue of his father, whereupon appellants assaulted him also and they assaulted her husband and committed his murder. They were shouting that for witchcraft you have cut the chicken. She further deposes that two months before the occurrence daughter of Somra Oraon had died of fever but they claimed that she died due to witchcraft played on her by her (informant) and that is why they came to commit her murder.
6. PW 1, who is the son of the informant, has also corroborated the evidence of PW 2 and supported the prosecution case. He has come to depose that on the occasion of Dipawali festival he had come to house and at the relevant time of occurrence he had gone to meet one of his friends in his village and on hearing alarm he rushed to his house and saw that his father was being dragged by these appellants. They dragged his father about a distance of 50′ from house and Budhu and Somra assaulted his father with Tangi and Bijla assaulted his father with Farsa and due to these injuries his father died there instantaneously. He further deposes that he went to the rescue of his father but he was also assaulted with the blunt portion of Tangi by Budhu and blunt portion of Farsa by Bijla. He also supported the prosecution case that they used to call her mother as witch. He has supported the prosecution case in toto.
7. Similarly PWs 3 and 4 have also corroborated the evidence of PWs 2 and 1 and have fully supported the prosecution case.
8. PW 5 who is a doctor and has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Jatia Kachhap, has found the following ante mortem injuries on his person :–
“(i) Incised injury over right forehead situated longitudely size 3/2″ x 1/2” with scalp covering deep
(ii) Incised injury over posterior part of left parietal bone size 3″ x 1/2″ x 1/2″ cutting all underlying structures’ including bone and brain matter. Cranial cavity full with blood mixed fluid and blood clot.
(iii) Incised injury over lower part of left ear lobules cutting ear tubules completely
(iv) Incised Injury over left forehead 3/2″ x 1/2″ x scalp covering depth
(v) contusion of chest below manubrium sternoid
(vi) Multiple abrasions over back
According to doctor, cause of death was injuries itself and head injury with shock and haemorrhage. All the injuries were ante mortem Injury Nos. i, ii, iii and iv were caused by sharp cutting weapons such as tangi and farsa and injuries v and vi by hard and blunt substance may be by lathi.
9. PW 6 is the I. O. of the case, who has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 3) and has also proved the fard beyan in his hand writing (Ext. 1). He further deposes that inquest report was prepared which is Ext. 4. He recorded the statement of the informant. He further deposes that first P.O. is the house of the informant situated in village Argori Barka Toll and another P.O. is at a distance of about 50 from the house of the informant and he gave the boundaries of the P.O. He has also found a Tamarind tree. He also recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter submitted chargesheet. He further deposes that he examined the body of PW 1 and PW 2 and found injuries on their person.
10. PW 7 is Dr. Umeshwari Kumari, who examined the injured PW 1 Mansa Kachchap (PW 1) on 6-11-1994 at 7.25 PM and found the swelling on the dorsum of right hand which is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. She further deposes that on the same day at about 7.10 PM she examined Dulari Kachchap and found the following injuries on her person.
“(i) Abrasion 1” long with swelling on the left calf
(ii) Swelling 1″ circumference on the left shoulder
(iii) Swelling on the left anterior auxiliary fold
The doctor has found the injuries simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. She further deposes that injury nos. (i) and (iii) may be caused by bat of tangi (Axe) and injury no (ii) may be caused by back portion of tangi.
11. In course of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants, pointed out that in this case not a single independent witness has been examined and all those witnesses who have been examined in this case are related to one another and are interested witnesses. It was also pointed out that FIR has been lodged after a lot of delay and occurrence is said to have taken place on 5-11-1994 at about 6 PM but fard beyan was recorded at 2.15 PM on 6-11-1994 and thus fard beyan was drawn up after about 20 hours of the occurrence. It was also pointed out that PW 1 is the son of PW 2 and PW 2 is mother of PW 1. Similarly PWs 3 and 4 are daughters of the informant and sister of PW 1 and thus all the four witnesses are related to one-another and, therefore, they are highly interested witnesses and there evidence cannot be relied upon because occurrence has not taken place in the night when not a single witness was available but at about 6 PM in the evening and further that when PW 1 rushed on alarm from the house of his friend who lived near the house of PW 2 then person residing in that very house or his friend must have heard the alarm and had also come to see the occurrence but not a single independent witness has been examined. Similarly when there was such a hue and cry, co-villagers must have also heard the cry and when there are so many houses near about the place of occurrence, many persons must have seen the occurrence but not a single independent witness of the village has been examined and this shows that no such occurrence has taken place and these appel-lants have been falsely implicated in this case.
12. From the nature of ante mortem injuries, it is clear that Jatia Kachchap was murdered and PW 5 has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Jatia Kachchap at about 12 AM on 7-11-1994 and occurrence is said to have taken place at about 6 PM on 5-11-1994 and therefore, occurrence is said to have taken place within that very time. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 have supported the prosecution case and their evidence is also corroborated by medical evidence when PW 5 finds injuries on the person of Jatia Kachchap caused by Tangi and Farsa. Similarly PW 2 has stated that her son PW 1 went to the rescue of his father but he was also assaulted by the appellants and PW 7 has found injuries on his person also PW 2 has stated that she was also assaulted by appellants while she was lying asleep in her house covering her body with clothes and PW 7 has found injuries on her person also and, therefore, the injury report corroborates the version of PW 2 that she too was assaulted by appellants. So there is evidence of PWs 2, 1, 3 and 4, which fully supports the prosecution case and evidence of PWs. 1. 3 and 4 corroborated the evidence of PW 2.
13. The evidence has come on record that occurrence took place at about 6 PM and since PW 2 was suffering from fever and such an occurrence had taken place with her husband so due to fear none of the family members of the deceased went immediately to the police station. It has also come in the evidence that next morning Mansa (PW 1) went to the police station to inform the police, whereupon police arrived in the village and recorded fard beyan of the informant. From formal FIR (Ext. 3), it appears that police station is situated at a distance of about 25 kms from the village and therefore it took time in going to the police station for lodging information and after arrival of police fard beyan of PW 2 was recorded at 2.15 p.m. and so there is no delay in lodging the FIR.
14. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that all the witnesses are interested ones and they are related to one another and therefore, no reliance should be placed upon their evidence because occurrence has taken place at about 6 p.m. in the evening and therefore, village being a thickly populated village, independent witnesses must have been examined by the I.O. and some independent witnesses should have come to support the case. But nature of case is such that nobody from the village or nobody of the neighbour has come to support the case because PW 2 is described to be a witch and allegation against her is that by practising witchcraft she killed the daughter of Somra two months ago and playing of witchcraft is so rampant in this area which is badly hated by other neighbourers or villagers and in such circumstances nobody will come to support the case of the prosecution and will tell the truth because everybody in the village hates a witch and also fears from a witch and therefore, if such a witch or any family member of such a witch is taught lesson in this way, people of the area generally will not come and, therefore, nobody will come to rescue or will come to support the case. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any witness in such a case. But the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are so consistent and their evidence is also supported by medical evidence and further PWs 1 and 2 have also sustained injuries and injuries on their persons have also been brought on record and injuries of PWs 1 and 2 and ante mortem injury on the deceased Jatia corroborates the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 and, therefore, this case stands well proved against the appellants. Nothing by way of enmity has been brought on record on behalf of the defence and only defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case but on the other hand, there is positive evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 about involvement of the appellants in the alleged murder of Jatia Oraon and that murder and evidence related thereto is also corroborated by medical evidence and, therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of sentence passed against the appellants.
15. In the result, this, appeal is dismissed.