Jishu Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1093 of 2012

[ Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.10.2012 and order of sentence dated 18.10.2012 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka in Sessions Trial No.119 of 2006]

¶3

Jishu Murmu .... .... …. Appellant --Versus-The State of Jharkhand …. …. …. Respondent

¶4

For the Appellant : Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

By Court

¶9

Judgment of conviction under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years, is under challenge in the instant criminal appeal.

¶10

As per the F.I.R., sister of the informant namely Sumi Marandi went missing on 19.12.2005 from her village Dharampur, P.S. Shikaripara. A missing information was given on that day by the informant, but she could not be traced out. Later on, a frantic search being made, it came to the light that on 11.12.2005, the appellantJishu Murmu along with Gurha Hansda had come to the house of his sister and had drinking bout with her that evening. This was revealed by the sons of the deceased were also in the house. Genesis of the offence is that about four months before the said incidence, the appellant-Jishu Murmu had convened Panchayti in the Village against Sumi Marandi, alleging her involvement in witch craft. Before the Panchayti, he had extended threat to the life of Sumi Marandi. It is alleged that on the said night, after administering her liquor, she was taken outside and on 11.01.2006 an amputate hand of a lady was found by some of the villagers who had gone there to collect fire wood. From the hand, victim was identified.

¶11

On the basis of statement of the informant, Shikaripara P.S. Case No.9/2006 was registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Jishu Murmu and Gurha Hansda.

¶12

Police, on investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant but, the co-accused was not sent up for trial. The appellant was put on trial for charges under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft Act.

¶13

Altogether eleven witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution and the post-mortem examination report, inquest report and the statement of the informant has been proved and marked as exhibit. After prosecution evidence, the

¶14

1

¶15

statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence is of innocence, but no specific defence has been pleaded.

¶16

One defence witness has also been examined and the certified copy has been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit A.

¶17

Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. The corpus delicti has not been found and amputated hand was found on the basis of which identification has been established, was not sent for DNA examination. It is also argued that though there was no evidence of abduction and the evidence or of last seen. There was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The incidence is alleged to have taken place on 19.12.2005 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 12.01.2006.

¶18

As per the prosecution case, the appellant had threatened the deceased with life and the Panchayti was also convened in this regard, but no evidence has been adduced regarding Panchayti to be held and none of the Panches has been made witness in the present case.

¶19

It is argued that only circumstance that has been relied by the prosecution is that before the lady went missing, she had drinking bout with the appellant, but no witness has been examined to establish that on the said night, the deceased was with the appellant. The children of the missing lady who were present in the house when the drinking is said to be taken place, have been examined, but they have not supported the prosecution case and have deposed that they were sleeping at that time. They have only stated that their mother had drink with Jishu and Gurha on the said night.

¶20

The main point for determination is whether in the absence of any direct eye witness to the incidence, the judgment of conviction and sentence is sustainable on the basis of the sole circumstance that on the date of incidence, the missing lady was seen having drink with the appellant and another co-accused.

¶21

Identification of the amputated hand with that of the missing lady has been duly established by the informant who happens to be the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that the hand was identified, by the bangle, ring and the tattoo present on the hand.

¶22

Sons of the deceased P.W.-4 and P.W.-7, both of them have deposed that on the fateful night their mother had taken drinks with the appellant and also with one Gurha Hembrom. On the next morning, they found that their mother was not present and the house was locked from outside.

¶23

Admittedly in the present case there is no direct eye witness to the incidence

¶24

2

¶25

of abduction or the commission of murder thereafter. Prosecution case rests on the account of the witnesses who saw the missing lady having drinks with this appellant along with the other co-accused who has not been sent up for trial. None of the witnesses have stated that they saw the appellant taking the deceased. The drinking bout that took place was about one month before the amputated hand of the deceased was recovered as deposed by prosecution witnesses. Motive has been proved, that appellant had threatened the deceased with life about four months before the said incidence, as he suspected her of practicing black magic.

¶26

For Circumstantial evidence that gives rise to a logical inference that such a fact does exist. It may be either conclusive or presumptive. It is conclusive when there is a connection between the principal fact and the evidential fact. It is presumptive where the facts rests on greater or less degree of probability. The standard of proof required to convict the person on circumstantial evidence is well established by a series of decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. According to that standard, the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction, must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

¶27

This Court is of the view that the proved circumstance of having drink on the said night by the appellant on the night of incidence is by itself not sufficient to bring home the charge against the appellant. After the drink there is absolutely no evidence as to who accompanied the deceased before she went missing. As per the prosecution case, appellant was not all alone with the deceased, and the co-accused who also had drinks on the said night with the deceased, has been exonerated during the investigation. There is a gap of one month between the date when the appellant had been seen with the deceased and when her dead body was recovered. On these sketchy evidence, chain of circumstance is not proved so as to draw an inference that the appellant was complicit in the offence and none else. Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Sureties are discharged from the liability of their bail bond.

¶28

Judgement of conviction and sentence is set aside.

¶29

Appeal is allowed.

¶30

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶31

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 4^th April, 2024 NAFR/Anit

¶32

3

Jishu Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jishu Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsher Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Balram Sahu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Khoshi Alias Khosi Vs State of Jharkhand

Mahtab Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Munshi Lal Mahto Alias Babu Lal Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ehtar Seikh Vs State of Jharkhand