Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Ajit Kumar Mahto - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 974 of 2005
Decided On : 20-12-2022
IPC - Assault and Witch Practices Act - 307, 456, 3 - The court discussed the evidence and found that the injuries were simple in nature and not sufficient to prove the intention or knowledge to commit murder. The appellant's conviction under section 307 of IPC was set aside and altered to section 324. The court also altered the conviction under section 456 of IPC and section 3 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for assaulting a woman and practicing witchcraft. The court found that the injuries were simple and not sufficient to prove the intention or knowledge to commit murder. The appellant's conviction was set aside and altered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries were not severe enough to prove the intention or knowledge to commit murder, and therefore, altered the appellant's conviction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the injuries sustained by the victim were sufficient to prove the intention or knowledge to commit murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injuries were simple in nature and not enough to prove the intention or knowledge to commit murder, leading to the alteration of the appellant's conviction.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under section 307 of IPC was set aside and altered to section 324. The court also altered the conviction under section 456 of IPC and section 3 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 26.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner 1st, Khunti, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 2002 in connection with Bundu P.S. Case No. 68 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No. 500 of 2001, Khunti, Ranchi, Jharkhand, whereby and where under the sole appellant has been found guilty u/s 307 and 456 of IPC and under section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 and accordingly the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for five years u/s 307 of IPC, RI for three years u/s 456 of IPC and three months for the offence punishable u/s 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1999), however it was ordered that all the sentences would run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated the allegations as set out in written report dated 05.10.2001 addressed to the officer In-charge Bundu Police Station, Ranchi by the informant Mandodari Devi - P.W. 5 was as under:-
On 04.10.2001 at 7 p.m. she was cooking meal inside her house, at the same time accused Ajit Kumar Mahto entered inside the house having malice intention and wanted to outrage her modesty, but the informant protested, thereafter the accused alleged her that she was a witch and he started assaulting her with intention to kill her. She raised alarm. Her children also came out in the courtyard from the room and started crying, her Devar Suresh Mahto and his wife Deomani Devi, Gita Kumari, Bidhayadhar Mahto rushed there, then the accused Ajit Mahto fled away by giving threats and hurling abuses at her. Further, it has been mentioned in the written report of the informant that having sustained injuries on her head she became unconscious. It has also been mentioned that accused Ajit Mahto always used to allege the informant that she was a witch and tortured her.
On the basis of the said written report of the informant, the police registered Bundu P.S. Case No. 68 of 2001 against accused Ajit Kumar Mahto for the offence under sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 354, and 458 of IPC and 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet against him for the offences under sections 341, 323, 307, 354 and 456 of IPC and under section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999, on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, thereafter, this record came to the file of Additional Judicial Commissioner 1st Khunti, Ranchi on 01.10.2002 at the stage of appearance of the accused by the order of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.
On 28.05.2003 charges under section 307, 354, 456 of IPC and section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 were framed by the then 1st A.J.C., Khunti against accused Ajit Kumar Mahto to which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by the court.
3. Learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Heard Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant
5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole appellant submitted that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution in a holistic manner and found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable inter alia 307 of IPC which is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that it is evident form the injury report Ext. 2 that the injuries are simple in nature and it has been caused by sharp cutting weapon.
Further, it has also been pointed out that there is a major contradiction with respect to the weapon used in inflicting injuri
The prosecution must establish intent or knowledge relating to murder for conviction under attempted murder; inconsistencies in evidence can undermine a case.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; significant discrepancies in evidence warranted the appellant's acquittal.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
In order to determine whether an offence under section 307 IPC is made out, crucial fact to be considered is intention and knowledge of appellant with which injuries were inflicted and not gravity of....
The court established that conviction under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not proven, leading to the conviction being overturned.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
