SOHRAI SOREN ALIAS LEPRA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1632 of 2023
------
( Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2022
and order of sentence dated 04.06.2022, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial Case No.390 of 2015 )
------
Sohrai Soren @ Lepra, Son of Late Thakur Oraon, Resident of
Village-Aadar Pokhra Toli, PO & PS-Ghaghra, Dist-Gumla,
Jharkhand. … … … Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent(s)

------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P
------

J U D G M E N T
By Court, :
th
04 November, 2026


This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant
being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction dated
31.05.2022 and order of sentence dated 04.06.2022, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla, in Sessions
Trial Case No.390 of 2015, whereby and wherein the appellant has
been convicted for offences under Section 302 of IPC and 3 & 4 of
the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. He was sentenced to
undergo R.I. for life and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under
Section 302 of I.P.C. and in case of non-deposition of fine further to
undergo R.I. for 2 years. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for
3 years under Section with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under
Section 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act and in
Page | 1

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
default of payment of fine further undergo to S.I. for 6 months.
2. We have heard, learned counsel representing the appellant and
learned AddI. P.P. representing the State and perused the material
available on record.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
prosecution case is doubtful as the informant himself has deviated
from his statement as a witness from the statement made in the
fardbeyan . It is his contention that in the F.I.R., it has been stated that
the occurrence took place as the appellant is to brand the deceased as
a witch but in his deposition, he stated that because of land dispute,
the occurrence had taken place. On this ground, he submits that the
prosecution case itself is liable to be dismissed. He further argues that
the witnesses have stated that at the place of occurrence, there are
several persons present even the children were also playing but none
of them were examined as a witness which also suggest the falsity of
the case. PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-10 have been declared
hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Considering this
material inconsistencies, he submits that the appellant be acquitted.
4. Learned AddI. P.P. representing the State, oppose and submits
that the Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. He further submits that it is a case of direct
evidence as PW-3 is the eye-witness of the occurrence and also
supported by medical evidence and PW-9 informant. The prosecution
is successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt thus,
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court
needs no interference.
5. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Faguni
Oraon-PW-9. She stated that her uncle-appellant carrying a lathi
(heavy stick) reached the field uttering that the deceased has practiced
witch craft due to which, his wife fell ill since last month. He then
Page | 2

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
started assaulting the deceased. The deceased tried to flee but she was
chased near the Akhara and multiple injuries was inflicted upon her
on head, mouth, eye etc. She fell down and became unconscious. She
was shifted for treatment to Health Centre at Ghaghra but she was
declared dead.
6. After registering FIR on the basis of fardbeyan , investigation
was carried out and the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections
302 of IPC against the appellant and after taking cognizance the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed
under Section 302 of IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain)
Practices Act.
7. The prosecution has altogether examined ten (10) witnesses,
who are as follows:-
P.W.-1 Bimla Devi is a hostile witness
P.W.-2- Gandur Oraon is a hostile witness
P.W.-3- Ramchandra Lohra is an ocular witness
P.W.-4- Vishnu Bhagat is a hostile witness
P.W.-5- Baidhnath Bhagat is a hostile witness
P.W.-6- Bandhu Oraon is a hearsay witness (son of
deceased)
P.W.-7- Dr. Roshan Praveen Khalkho is an expert witness
P.W.-8- Rajendra Rajak, I.O. of this case.
P.W.-9- Faguni Oraon is informant of this case.
P.W.-10-Sunil Oraon is a hostile witness.
8. Some documents were also exhibited in this case, which are as
follows:-
Exhibit-1- Signature of Bandhu Oraon on death inquest
report.
Exhibit-2- Post-mortem report
Exhibit-3 Thumb impression of Phaguni Oraon and
Page | 3

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
signature of Pramila Oraon on fardbeyan
Exhibit-4 Signature of Kalim Ansari on formal FIR
Exhibit-5 Endorsement of Kalim Ansari on written
fardbeyan
Exhibit-6 Inquest Report of deceased Balki Orain.
Exhibit-7- Signature of Rajendra Rajak on charge-sheet.
Mark ‘X’ Thumb Impression of Faguni Oraon on
fardbeyan .
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement under
Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. The defence has not adduced or
produced any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. Finally,
after hearing both the parties, the Trial Court has convicted the
appellant and sentenced as aforesaid.
10. After going through the records, we find that PW-1, PW-2, PW-
4, PW-5 and PW-10 are hostile witnesses.
11. PW-3 is an eye-witness, PW-9 is the informant, PW-7 is the
doctor who conducted post-mortem of the deceased. The
Investigation Officer is PW-8 and PW-6 admittedly is a hearsay
witness.
12. The post-mortem report has been marked as Exhibit-2. The
doctor who conducted the post-mortem is PW-7. He stated that he
found the following injuries: -
On inspection:- Rigor Mortis present in the upper and
lower limb, mouth and eye partially closed, face and cloth
soiled with blood and sand particles.
External Injuries:-
(i) Lacerated wound size about 2”x1” or right zygomatic
region with fracture of zygomatic bone.
(ii) Lacerated wound size about 2” x 1” on left zygomatic
region with fracture of zygomatic bone.
Page | 4

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
(iii) Left wrist deform due to fracture of redius and ulna.
(iv) Lacerated wound size about 2” x 2” on chin
All the injuries are antemortem in nature.
On dissection:-
(i) Frontal lobe of brain contused containing blood clot on
both the sides.
(ii) Heart, great vessels and lungs congested.
(iii) Stomach empty.
He opined that the injuries caused by hard and blunt
substances and the cause of death is cardiac respiratory failure due the
injury to the brain. The post-mortem report and the evidence of the
doctor clear suggests that the death is homicidal.
13. PW-3 is an eye-witness. He stated that the occurrence had taken
place on 25.06.2015 at about 5:00 PM. He was returning with Bimla
Devi, Vishnu Oraon and others. He stated that then he saw the
appellant assaulting the deceased with sticks near the Akhara. He
further stated that the deceased became unconscious and thereafter,
he was taken to the hospital. He stated that while the appellant was
leaving the place, the appellant was threating that if anyone comes to
depose, he will kill them also. By saying this, he fled towards the
jungle. He also stated that the appellant was saying that the deceased
was doing some witch craft, as a result of which, his wife was ill. The
doctor declared the deceased dead.
In cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded
by the police. He stated that near the Akhara, there were several other
persons and everyone had seen the occurrence. He stated that he could
identify the appellant as because he is from the same village.
In cross-examination, he also stated that there is a witch craft
case among the parties, which is pending and the appellant has also
stated about witch craft in his presence and he used to say that the
Page | 5

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
deceased claimed that his wife has come under the influence of
witches.
In cross-examination, he also reiterated that the appellant went
towards the jungle and threatened everyone not to give evidence.
14. From his statement, the fact which can be gathered is that he
has seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with the stick and
appellant was threatening that no-one should give evidence in this
case. He also supported the fact that the appellant had complaint of
witch craft. There is nothing in his deposition to disbelieve him and
discard his evidence, rather we accept him to be the eye-witness.
15. PW-9 is the informant. She is the daughter. She stated that they
were sowing groundnuts when this incident occurred and the incident
occurred because of land dispute. She stated that it is this appellant
who has assaulted the deceased.
In cross-examination, she stated that from the field, appellant
started assaulting the deceased and she was assaulted near the Akhara
where she fell down. She stated that the small children were present
there who had seen the occurrence and the villagers also had seen.
She stated that before the Police, she did not say that there was a land
dispute. She stated that deceased was treated in Ghaghra hospital but
there is no document. She admitted that she had put her thumb
impression before the Police in the document but she is not aware
what was written in the paper. She denied the suggestions that no
incident had occurred and her mother was not assaulted.
16. This witness though stated that the reason of the occurrence is
land dispute but in the F.I.R. she had stated that her mother was
branded as a witch thus she was attacked and killed. This is a
discrepancy in her statement but in our opinion that is not a glaring
discrepancy which can affect the merits of the case. Admittedly, she
had stated that her mother was assaulted with sticks and was chased
Page | 6

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
up to the Akhara where again she was assaulted and she fell
unconscious and later on died while taking to the hospital. This fact
has also been supported by PW-3.
17. On these minor contradictions, it cannot be said that this witness
is wholly unreliable. On the point that who has assaulted the deceased,
we find this witness as reliable. In State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki
reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that in the deposition of witnesses there are always normal
discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be.
18. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that while appreciating the evidence the Court has to take
into consideration whether the contradiction and omissions had been
of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial and minor
contradiction, inconsistency, embellishment or improvement on
trivial matter without affecting the core of the prosecution should not
be made a ground to reject the evidence of a witness in its entirety.
Paragraph No.30 of the judgment reads as under:
“30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into
consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been
of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial.
Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or
improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of
the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the
evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the
entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of
the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would
not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable
reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010)
4 SCC (Cri) 580 : AIR 2009 SC 152].)”

19. Both the eye-witnesses have stated that the deceased was
assaulted with a lathi . This fact has been supported by the medical
evidence, as the doctor also said that the assault was by hard and blunt
substance.
Page | 7

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
20. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, we find that both
PW-3 and PW-9 had stated that the main assault had taken place near
the Akhara where after being mercilessly assaulted, the deceased
became unconscious. There is no deviation in their statements and
statement of each other matches on the place of occurrence.
21. Further, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
were several witnesses and the children were also playing there but
none of the persons have been produced as a witness which dents the
prosecution case. We are not in agreement with the argument of the
appellant.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the quantity
but quality of the witness which matters. We don’t find any qualitative
degradation in the statement of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-
9. They stood firm and they supported the prosecution case.
23. Further, the witnesses have stated that the appellant had
threatened the onlookers of dire consequences if they appear and
depose against him. This may be a ground for others not to come
forward which is a genuine and reasonable ground.
24. So far as Investigating Officer is concerned who is PW-8, the
Investigating Officer has identified the place of occurrence. The first
place of occurrence is the field from where the first assault was given
and the second place of occurrence is the Akhara. The I.O. had
described both the places. There is nothing in the cross-examination
to discredit these witnesses nor any major contradictions have been
taken in his cross-examination.
25. Thus, from what has been held above, we find that the
prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
all reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has correctly convicted and
sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 3 & 4
of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act.
Page | 8

2026:JHHC:32352-DB
26. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Trial
Court needs no interference, thus, this appeal stands dismissed .
27. Pending I.A.(s) if any, stands dismissed.

28. 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

S.K.D/Cp-3


Uploaded on 06 / 11 /2026.
Page | 9