Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Attempt-To-Murder Conviction In ‘Jhar-Phoonk’ Case [Read Order]

Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder, holding that the ingredients of the offence were not made out, while upholding his convictions under Sections 341, 342, 323 and 324 of the IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3/4 of the Witch Craft Prevention Act, and directed his release forthwith as he has remained in custody for more than four years, the maximum sentence for the other offences.

Justice Rajesh Kumar passed the order on 05.10.2026 (Order No. 20) in Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 484 of 2023, filed by Md. Wahid, also known as Md. Abdul Wahid, against the State of Jharkhand and the informant. The appellant had challenged the judgment of conviction dated 15.06.2023 and the order of sentence dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge POCSO, Chatra, in POCSO Case No. 27 of 2022, arising out of Lawalong P.S. Case No. 26 of 2022.

According to the prosecution, the informant's 14-year-old daughter fell ill after Holi, and the appellant assured the family that he would cure her in two days. On 26.03.2022, the informant and his wife were allegedly asked to stay outside the room on the pretext that it was a place of a spirit, while the appellant took the girl inside and, in the guise of jhar-phoonk, tortured and beat her on three consecutive days, including burning her with a candle and incense sticks, and threatened the family when they objected. It was also alleged that he sexually assaulted her. The FIR was registered on 30.03.2022, the charge sheet was filed on 29.05.2022, and charges were framed under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 of the IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3/4 of the Witch Craft Prevention Act.

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The informant, the victim's mother and her brother admitted in cross-examination that they had not seen the occurrence, an independent witness and a cousin denied any jhar-phoonk or injury in their presence, and a villager stated that the appellant does not perform jhar-phoonk. The victim supported the prosecution case and remained consistent in cross-examination, the investigating officer recovered burnt matchsticks and incense sticks from the place of occurrence, and the doctor who examined her stated that she found no injury of sexual assault and no evidence of rape. The school principal proved her date of birth as 19.02.2005.

The trial court convicted the appellant of all the charged offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341, one year each under Sections 342 and 323, rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 324, rigorous imprisonment for six years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 307, rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and simple imprisonment for three months and six months under Sections 3 and 4 of the Witch Craft Prevention Act, with three months' rigorous imprisonment in default of fine and all sentences to run concurrently.

On appeal, counsel for the appellant confined his challenge to the conviction under Section 307, submitting that there was neither an intention to cause death nor any injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that the trial court had not put any such question to the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the conviction but could not point out any injury or intention attracting Section 307.

The High Court held that there was injury and evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions under Sections 341, 342, 323 and 324 and the Witch Craft Prevention Act, and that Section 8 of the POCSO Act was attracted since, as per the victim, a minor aged about 14, there was bad touch, and upheld those convictions. On Section 307, it held that the prosecution had not presented the ingredients of the offence, whether in the prosecution story or in the injury caused, so that the conviction was bad in law and was set aside.

Noting that the maximum sentence awarded for the remaining offences is four years and that the appellant has remained in custody for more than four years, the court directed that he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appeal was disposed of with these modifications, and the trial court records were directed to be sent back forthwith.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate.

For the State: Mr. Md. Fahad Allam, Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Md. Wahid @ Md. Abdul Wahid @ Abdul Wahid vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 484 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:29658)

[Read Order]