ETWA MUNDA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32233-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
…….
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.530 of 2020

( Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 13.11.2019 and order
of sentence dated 14.11.2019, passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner- XVIII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial Case No.71 of
2016 )
------
Ram Pahan, S/o Late Lofar Pahan, R/o Village Jareya, PO & PS
Namkum, District Ranchi
… … … Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.233 of 2022
…….
Etwa Munda, S/o Late Delo Munda, R/o Village- Jareya, PO and PS
Namkum, District- Ranchi
… … … Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent(s)
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailash Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, AddI. P.P.
Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, AddI. P.P.
------
J U D G M E N T
By Court, :
th
04 November, 2026

th

Reference be made to the order dated 13 October, 2026.
2. Mr. Sailesh Poddar appears on behalf of the appellant and he has
filed vakalatnama .
3. These Criminal Appeals are preferred on behalf of the
appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 13.11.2019 and order of sentence dated 14.11.2019, passed by
1

2026:JHHC:32233-DB

learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVIII, Ranchi, in
Sessions Trial Case No.71 of 2016, whereby and wherein the
appellants have been convicted for offences under Section 302/34 of
I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine
of Rs.10,000/-, for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and in
default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year and also
convicted for the offence under Section ¾ of Witch Craft Act
sentenced to one year R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two months.
4. We have heard, learned counsels representing the appellants and
learned AddI. P.P. representing the State and perused the material
available on record.
5. Learned counsel representing the appellants, submits that there
is delay in lodging the FIR. The date of occurrence is of 23.07.2015
about 05:00 PM, but surprisingly, the matter has been reported before
the police after much delay i.e. 24.07.2015 at about 06:00 A.M. in the
morning and the formal F.I.R. was drawn up on 01:30 P.M. He further
submits that the appellants were apprehended after three days in the
village and if at all they have committed the murder, they would not
have remained in the village, they should have fled. He further
submits that Investigating Officer was not examined in these cases,
which caused great prejudice as the place of occurrence could not be
proved. He also submits that due to non-examination of the
Investigation Officer, the cause of delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not
been properly explained. The murder weapon axe was not recovered
and the blood stained soil which was collected was not sent for the
FSL examination. He also submits that one Bandu Munda in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that these appellants were
in intoxicate condition, thus this case will come under the exception
2

2026:JHHC:32233-DB

of Section 302 of IPC. He also submits that the eye witness was
related witness and none of the villagers have been examined as eye
witness though if in the village this cruel murder had taken place there
should have been other eye witnesses. He further submits that the
doctor opined that injuries can be caused by sword also thus, there is
confusion in respect of the murder weapon.
6. Learned AddI. P.P. representing the State, oppose and submits
that merely being related witness, their credibility cannot be
questions. He submits that they are natural eye witnesses. He further
submits that the deceased was branded as a witch and thereafter, she
was murdered. In villages where old ladies are branded as a witch,
seldom someone comes forward to depose. He further submits that
non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any
prejudice as there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further
submits that non recovery of the tangi and not sending the blood
stained soil to the FSL is not fatal. He submits that place of occurrence
has already been proved by other witnesses and from their cross-
examination, there is nothing to suggest that these appellants have
disputed the place of occurrence and the commission of the murder.
He submits that if the evidence is read in entirety, it will clearly
suggest that in the defence also there is no doubt that the murder has
been committed and it has been committed by these appellants.
7. The prosecution case is based on fardbeyan of PW-2, Munda
Pahan (son of the deceased). He states that these accused used to
brand the deceased as a witch. On 23.07.2015 at about 5:00 P.M., the
accused armed with axe came to their house where the deceased was
sitting, then suddenly they inflicted axe blow on the deceased, which
resulted in her death. He stated that Bundu Pahan and other villagers
also witness the aforesaid incident.
3

2026:JHHC:32233-DB

8. After the investigation charge-sheet was submitted and
cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions, where the Court framed charge under Sections
302/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft Act
against the accused, and the case proceeded.
9. The prosecution has altogether examined seven (07) witnesses,
statements of whom are as follows:-
P.W.-1- Bandu Pahan
P.W.-2 Munda Pahan
P.W.-3- Buta Pahan
P.W.-4 Dr. A.K. Choudhary
P.W.-5 Sikram Pahan
P.W.-6 Ghasi Munda
P.W.-7 Shankar Hajam
Some documents were also exhibited in this case, which are as
follows:-
Exhibit-1- Signature of P.W.-1 on inquest report
Exhibit-1/1- Signature of P.W.-2 on inquest report
Exhibit-2- Signature of P.W.-2 on fardbeyan.
Exhibit-3- Signature of P.W.-2 on seizure list
Exhibit-4- Postmortem report of the deceased

10. The first ground taken by the appellants before us is that there
is a huge delay in lodging the F.I.R. We are not in agreement with the
learned counsel for the appellants. The occurrence had taken place on
23.07.2015 at 5:00 PM in evening. It has come in evidence that it was
raining heavily. The matter was reported to the police on 24.07.2015
at 6: 00AM in morning. This time gap is not at all a delay. Thus, it
cannot be said that there is any delay in lodging the FIR.
So far as, death is concerned, the Doctor (P.W.-4) who has
conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, stated that he found
incised wound on the forehead and there was a cut injury also on the
frontal bone with the crack fracture on the left frontal bone and there
4

2026:JHHC:32233-DB

are other several fractures. He also found injury on the neck and
cutting of soft tissues and blood vessels. It is necessary to quote the
injury which was found:-
Injuries (External): Incised Wounds :
(i) 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the forehead under neath there was cut
injury 5 c.m. long on frontal bone with crack fracture, 6 c.m. on left
frontal bone and another crack fracture 12 c.m. long on right frontal
bone, cutting the dura matter and brain under neath with presence of
blood and blood clots in the cranial cavity.
(ii) 7 c.m. x 1 c.m. x soft tissue on right side of neck lateral side middle
part and 5c.m. x 1 c.m. on the right side of neck lateral side lower part
with cutting soft tissues and blood vessels.
(iii) 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x soft tissue on left side of neck lateral and upper part
cutting the soft tissues.
(iv) 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x soft tissues on left side of neck lateral side upper
part cutting soft tissues and trachea.

The doctor opined that all the injuries are ante-mortem caused
by heavy sharp cutting weapon and death is due to combined effect
of hemorrhagic shock and head injury. The postmortem report marked
as Exhibit-4. In cross-examination, nothing important has been
extracted. Save and expect, the opinion of the doctor that these
injuries can be caused by sword also.

11. From the evidence of the doctor and the post-mortem report, it
is clear that the death was by sharp cutting weapon and all the assault
was made on the vital part of the body, which caused death as there
were several incised injuries on the neck and head. This clearly proves
that the death is homicidal in nature and caused after assault.
12. Now on the question of involvement of the appellants, we find
that PW-3 is an eye-witness. In examination-in-chief, he stated that at
the point of time, he was in his house. These two appellants came
there and assaulted on the head and neck of the deceased. He also
stated that they used to brand the deceased as a Witch. Surprisingly,
in the cross-examination, the defence has taken out from him that he
is an eye-witness as he stated that he has seen the occurrence. He also
5

2026:JHHC:32233-DB

admitted that his statement was recorded by the Police and he also in
a question by the defence accepted the fact that he had also narrated
to the Police that he had seen the occurrence. He also stated that
except him, there were others also who have seen the occurrence. In
paragraph 3 of the cross-examination, he reiterates that he had seen
Etawa Munda giving blows on the head of the deceased. From his
examination, there is no room to disbelieve him as an eye-witness.
Further, there is nothing to suggest that he is tutored. Further, from his
evidence, there is nothing to suggest that the appellants have been
falsely implicated in these cases. On the point of assault, his testimony
is corroborated with the medical evidence.
PW-2, Munda Pahan, he is also an eye-witness. He stated that
the deceased was branded as a Witch by these two appellants. He also
stated that he had seen the occurrence where these appellants have
assaulted the deceased. He also stated that the assault was on the head
and neck. From his evidence, it is clear that he is also an eye-witness
and there is nothing to disbelieve them or to discredit him, this
evidence also corroborates with the medical evidence.
PW-1 also stated in the same manner.
Thus, we come to the conclusion that all three witness are eye-
witnesses and they stood firm while deposing as witnesses.
13. Though the witnesses are related to the deceased, but there is
nothing to suggest they are falsely implicating these appellants. Thus,
there is no ground to discredit their deposition.
14. It is true that the I.O. has not been examined in this case, but
from the evidence and from the argument, we could not find any
material to suggest that because of non-examination of the
Investigating Officer, the accused persons have been prejudiced. As
decided earlier, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. Non-recovery of
6

2026:JHHC:32233-DB

the murder weapon cannot be a ground to disbelieve or falsify the
entire prosecution story, in view of the specific statement of the eye-
witnesses, who had seen occurrence of the murder. Non-examination
of the Mukhiya or not sending the blood stained soil to the F.S.L. is of
no relevance, in view of the direct ocular evidence.
15. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the defence has
not suggested before the witnesses about any other alternative place
of occurrence.
16. So far as the plea of intoxication is concerned, if at all the
appellants were in an intoxicated state, voluntary intoxication cannot
be a defence in a case of murder. Thus, we find no merit in these
appeals. These appeals stand dismissed. Since, the appellant- Etwa
Munda in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.233 of 2022 is on bail, his bail bond
is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court to
serve the rest of the sentence. If he does not surrender, the Trial Court
is directed to take appropriate steps against him in accordance with
law.
17. Pending I.A.(s) if any, stands dismissed.

18. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court concerned.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

( PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , J.)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
th
Dated:- 04 November, 2026
R.S. /S.K.D.
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06/11/2026.
7