JUDGMENT

Reserved on: 01.10.2024 Pronounced On: 16.10.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 201 of the IPC and Section 3/4 Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.

2. Informant is the son of the deceased Dayamani Devi. As per FIR, the informant who was student of Class IX, had gone to take part in flag hoisting ceremony on the eve of Independence Day. His elder sister Kalawati Devi was married and living in her matrimonial home in another village, whereas his younger sister had also gone to meet her. Father of the informant was a farmer and had left his home in the morning for grazing the cattle and his mother was all alone in the house. At around 1.30 in the day time, when the informant returned home, he did not find his mother and therefore, went behind his house looking for her. He found his mother dead, lying in a pool of blood and her neck had been partially severed and there was also marks of bleeding injury over her left hand. On alarm being raised, people gathered there. Father of the informant had not returned and the informant and villagers went in search for him in the jungle area to inform about the incidence. While searching for him, when they reached Baghmara jungle, his father was also found dead in a field with sharp cut injury over his neck and head.

3. It is alleged that the appellant who was cousin of the informant used to brand his parents as witch and also attributed the illness of his mother to the deceased. He had threatened his parents with life. After committing the offence, the appellant had fled away and he could not be found. Informant suspected that the appellant had committed cold-blooded murder of his mother and father.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Kurdeg P.S. Case No.25/15 was registered under Sections 302, 201 of the IPC and Section 3/4 Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 against the appellant. Police during investigation and on his disclosure statement, seized the weapon of offence. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against him and he was put on trial for these offences.

5. Altogether 13 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents including inquest report, fardbeyan, post-mortem report, disclosure statement and FSL report, have been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits. The tangi was produced and marked as material Exhibit No.I.

6. Judgment of conviction has been assailed principally on the ground that there is no eye witness to the incidence and the entire case rests on the disclosure statement made by the appellant. It is argued that a judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be returned only on recovery of weapon of offence on the disclosure statement made by the accused. The seizure list witness in whose presence the weapon of offence was said to be seized, has not supported the prosecution case. It is also argued that seizure list witness P.W. 4, has identified his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 3, but has stated that his signature was taken on blank sheet of paper in the police station. Reliance is placed on Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843.

7. Learned counsel on behalf of State has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that matter involves cold blooded murder of a woman by branding her as a witch. The material witnesses have consistently stated that, it was the appellant alone who committed the offence, which has been proved by recovery of the weapon of offence on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant. There is no motive to falsely implicate the accused and there is a ring of truth in the testimony of the informant as he has not attempted to make any false statement in his deposition.

8. Death was homicidal, is proved by the Doctor (P.W. 7), who conducted post-mortem examination on both the dead bodi