Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO, Chatra, under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Witchcraft Prevention Act.
Source reference: p. 1–3, para. 2–3The prosecution alleged that the appellant subjected the 14-year-old victim to physical abuse during a purported healing ritual, including burning and other injuries.
Source reference: p. 1–3, para. 2–3The victim testified to the abuse and identified the appellant; the medical officer found no evidence of sexual assault or rape.
Source reference: p. 5–6, para. 13, 16On appeal, the appellant confined his challenge to the Section 307 IPC conviction, arguing that its essential ingredients were absent.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 18Issues
1. Whether the evidence and circumstances established the ingredients necessary to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Source reference: p. 6–7, para. 18–202. Whether the convictions under the other provisions should be disturbed.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 20–21Law Applied
The Court considered Section 307 IPC, observing that its application requires the necessary ingredients of an act amounting to culpable homicide and finding that those ingredients had not been established in this case.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 20It also considered Sections 341, 342, 323 and 324 IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Witchcraft Prevention Act in assessing the remaining convictions.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 20Reasoning
The Court found evidence of injury and accepted the victim’s account as sufficient to sustain the convictions under Sections 341, 342, 323 and 324 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Witchcraft Prevention Act; it also held that the victim’s account of bad touch supported the Section 8 POCSO conviction.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 20By contrast, it found that neither the prosecution case nor the injuries established the ingredients of Section 307 IPC. It therefore held that the conviction under that section could not stand.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 20Holding
The Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and upheld the convictions under the remaining provisions.
Recording that the appellant had been in custody for more than four years and that the maximum sentence imposed for the other offences was four years, it directed his release forthwith, unless wanted in another case.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 21The appeal was disposed of with those modifications.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 22Acts & Sections Cited
7 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Indian Penal Code, 18605
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20121
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
MD WAHID ALIAS MD ABDUL WAHIDvsTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
