AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 5221 of 2019.
Sole appellant along with six others have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/354 of I.P.C and 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999 by the impugned judgment dated 2nd August, 2018 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 347 of 2016/T.R. No. 15 of 2018 by the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I. (AHD)-cum-Spl. Court (CAW), Ranchi and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under Section 302 of I.P.C with a default sentence; Rigorous Imprisonment for five years under Section 354 of I.P.C with a default sentence; Rigorous Imprisonment of three months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999 with a default sentence and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999 with a default sentence. All the sentences have been ordered to run consecutively.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that five other co-convicts have preferred Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1106 of 2018 against the common impugned judgment. They have been enlarged on bail by granting them suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal vide order dated 15th May, 2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Allegation and evidence as against this appellant is also same and similar. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1060 of 2018 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 345 of 2016, appellant has been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 24th June, 2019 taking into account that other eight co-convicts have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1107 of 2018.
When the matter was taken up on 25th June, 2019, it transpired that the appellant has been convicted in two similar cases. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to ascertain as to how many F.I.Rs have been instituted at Mandar Police Station on 22nd June, 2016 with same and similar allegations in respect of the same place of occurrence and the corresponding Sessions Trial Cases; number of the accused persons, who are facing trial in those cases and those who have been convicted/acquitted by the concerned Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant was also directed to file an affidavit stating as to in how many cases the appellant is facing trial of similar nature and convicted; the number of concerned appeals, if any preferred against those convictions.
On behalf of the appellant affidavit has been filed on 27th June, 2019, inter alia, stating that on the allegation of killing of five ladies practicing witchcraft four separate police cases, namely, (1) Mandar P.S. Case No. 91/2015(S.T. No. 347/16), (2) Mandar P.S. Case No. 89/2015 (S.T. No. 2/16), (3) Mandar P.S. Case No. 92/2015(S.T. No. 346/16) and (4) Mandar P.S. Case No. 90/2015(S.T. No. 345/16) have been registered. In these four Sessions Trial appellant has been acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 346/16 arising out of Mandar P.S. Case No. 92/2015 while six others were convicted.
Learned counsel for the State has also filed an affidavit today, wherein at para-6 onwards the following facts have been stated. Four F.I.Rs were instituted under Mandar Police Station as named above.
Altogether nine Sessions Trials have been conducted arising out of four F.I.Rs, which are as follows:
Sl.No.
S.T.No.
Arising out of Mandar P.S Case No.
01.
002/2016
89/2015
02.
345/2016
90/2015
03.
346/2016
92/2015
04.
347/2016
91/2015
05.
285/2018
89/2015
06.
219/2019
91/2015
07.
220/2019
91/2015
08.
221/2019
91/2015
09.
222/2019
89/2015
In S.T. No. 02/2016 there were 39 accused persons; S.T.No. 346/2016 there were same 40 accused as in S.T.No. 345/2016; in S.T.No. 347/2016 same 40 accused as in S.T.No. 345/2016; S.T.No. 285/2018 trial is pending as against accused, Mangal Khalkho; S.T. Nos. 219/2019,220/19,221/2019 and 22/2019 have been amalgamated as against three accused persons.
At Para-9 name of the convicts in each of the four Sessions Trial which has been concluded, has been given while other five Sessions Trial are still pending. It is appropriate to extract the chart showing the Sessions Trial no. and name of the convicts as against them in these four Sessions Trial Cases.
Sl.No.
S.T.No.
Convicts
01.
02/2016
Burnwas Khalkho, Xaveer Khalkho, Mojesh Khalkho,Krishna Khalkho, Baldeo Khalkho, Sannu Oraon, Sannu Khalkho, Arun Bara, Sandip Khalkho, Sachin Khalkho, Albinus Khalkho
02.
345/2016
Sandip Khalkho, Sachin Khalkho, Romit Khalkho,Xaveer, Khalkho,Mojesh Khalkho, Krishna Khalkho, Baldeo Khalkho, Arun Bara, Rajesh Tigga
03.
346/2016
Mojesh Khalkho, Xaveer Khalkho, Sachin Khalkho, Sandip Khalkho, Krishna Khalkho, Baldeo Khalkho,
04.
347/2016
Sandip Khalkho, Sachin Khalkho, Krishna Khalkho, Baldeo Khalkho, Xaveer Khalkho, Rajesh Tigga, Arun Bara
05.
285/2018
Trial is pending
06.
219/2019
Trial is pending
07.
220/2019
Trial is pending
08.
221/2019
Trial is pending
09.
222/2019
Trial is pending
Lower Court Records of all these four Sessions Trial have been summoned before this Court in connection with the appeals preferred by the convicts thereunder. F.I.R no. Sessions Trial no., date and time of institution of Fardbeyan; name of the informant; total number of named accused persons in each of these F.I.Rs and the Police Officer, who recorded the Fardbeyan are being incorporated in the form of a chart hereinbelow:
F.I.R No.
S.T.No.
Date & Time of institution of Fardbeyan
Informant
Total named accused
Police Officer recorded Fardbeyan
89/2015
02/16
08.08.2015 at 1.00 hours
Anima Khalkho
49
A.S.I., Kameshwar Prasad Singh
90/2015
345/16
08.08.2015 at 1.15 hours
Sukumar Khalkho
47
S.I., Ram Narayan Singh, O.C
91/2015
347/16
08.08.2015 at 1.10 hours
Sibi Khalkho
49
S.I. S.C Kondangkel
92/2015
346/2016
08.08.2015 at 1.10 Hours
Suna Khalkho
58
S.I. S. Sundi
Purpose for which the above details have been extracted shall be dealt with in the later part of this order.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has in course of argument opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant on merits. He submits that five ladies were killed on the allegations of practicing witchcraft, which has led to the institution of four F.I.Rs. and corresponding 9 sessions trial. Appellant has faced conviction in three of the sessions trial cases while acquitted in one of them. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, does not dispute that this appellant has been granted bail in Cr.Appeal(D.B) No. 1060 of 2019 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 345 of 2016. Other five co-convicts in the instant S.T No. 347 of 2016 have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15th May, 2019 in Cr.Appeal (D.B) No. 1106 of 2018.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and State and taken note of the facts and circumstances noted above as also the relevant material evidence relied upon by them on the prayer made for suspension of sentence of this appellant.
Having regard to the fact that other five co-convicts have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1106 of 2018 arising out of the same S.T. Case, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant, Arun Bara be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I. (AHD)-cum-Spl. Court (CAW), Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 347 of 2016/T.R. No. 15 of 2018 arising out of Mandar P.S. Case No. 91 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4820 of 2015, subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be blood relative of the appellant. Appellant and his bailor shall not change their address without prior permission of Trial Court.
I.A. No. 5221 of 2019 stands allowed accordingly.
In view of the conspicuous facts noticed hereinabove, both from the affidavit of the State and the relevant material particulars culled out from the Lower Court Records in connection with four Sessions Trial cases named above, we consider it appropriate that the instant order be communicated to the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Director General of Police and Director (Prosecution), Jharkhand. It is expected that State functionaries would enquire and ascertain whether it was proper to record separate F.I.Rs for the above occurrences, which has led to nine separate trials when most of the accused persons are common and prosecution witnesses also appear to be common. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Director, Judicial Academy.