Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:34464-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
-----------
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2001 (Sentence passed on 06.09.2001) holding the appellant Rajendra Oraon guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Sri. D. K. Sinha, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga] Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 485 of 2001
-----------
Rajendra Oraon, S/o.- Late Ratiya Oraon, R/o. Vill.- Juria, Semartoli, P.S.- Lohardaga, Dist.- Lohardaga. ..... ..... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... ..... Respondent
-----------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----------
For the Appellant : M/s. A. K. Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the State : M/s. Pankaj Kumar, P. P.
-----------
C.A.V. On 27.08.2025 Pronounced on 18 / 11 / 2025
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P. P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2001 (Sentence passed on 06.09.2001) passed by Sri. D. K. Sinha, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga (as His Lordship was then), holding the appellant Rajendra Oraon guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with S.T. No. 186 of 1997 & 18 of 1997 arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 140 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. No. 377 of 1996 and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 5000/-, no alternative sentence was passed in default of payment of fine.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Bandhan Oraon alleging therein that on 21.10.1996 at about 11:30 P.M., while he was on patrolling duty, he received information that the appellant Rajendra Oraon had murdered his step brother Ram Bilas Oraon and his five other family members and after committing their murder, he dumped their dead body in a well. He went to the place of occurrence, which was house of the deceased Ram Bilas Oraon and found the dead body of deceased Ram Bilas Oraon lying inside with several injuries. He also found the dead bodies of other deceased persons floating in the well. Jagmuni Kumari, nine years' old daughter of the deceased Ram Bilas Oraon and his father-in-law Sukur Oraon, on seeing the occurrence, had fled away due to which their life could be saved.
4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 18.01.1997, under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the case was taken by the Court of learned C.J.M., Lohardaga on 19.01.1997 under the aforesaid Sections. This case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned C.J.M., Lohardaga as it was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 01.04.1997 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.
7. Doctor Kameshwar Thakur, P.W. 1 has performed the postmortem of the deceased persons. He had proved the post mortem reports which are Ext: - 1 Series.
Mohan Oraon, P.W. 2 and Ghurti Oraon P.W. 3 are the formal witnesses, who have proved their signature in the Inquest Report which are Ext:- 2 to 2/5 and 2/6 to 2/11 respectively.
Sudhu Oraon, P.W. 4 has been tendered.
Chandranath Bhagat, P.W. 5 is the witness of seizure of blood stained soil, broken bangle pieces, from the place of occurrence and blood stained Lathi & blood stained white vest recovered from the house of the appellant. He has proved his signature on the seizure lists which are Ext.:- 2/12 and Ext.:- 2/13 respectively.
Pachchu Pahan, P.W. 6 is another witness of seizure of stone grinder and another stone weighing about 10 kgs. He has proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.:- 3. Budhu Pahan, P.W. 7 is another witness of seizure of blood stained
2|Page Lathi. He has given his thumb impression on the seizure list. Santosh Oraon, P.W. 8 is another formal witness, who had provided his pumping machine to take out water from the well of deceased Ram Bilas Oraon.
Samsul Ansari, P.W. 9 is another witness of the seizure of stone grinder and a heavy stone.
Bandhan Oraon, P.W. 10 is the informant. He has proved his signature in his Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.:- 3/1. Bhukhla Bhagat, P.W. 11 is local M.L.A. of Bishunpur Constituency. He stated that the appellant had made his extra judicial confession before him.
Mahadeo Oraon, P.W. 12 is one of the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the formal F.I.R., which has been marked as Ext.:-
4. He has also produced seizure lists which have been marked as Ext.:-6 Series. He has also produced Inquest Report, which has been marked as Ext.:-7 Series.
Shailendra Nath Singh, P.W.13 is another Investigating Officer of this case, who has proved the Fardbeyan of the informant Bandhan Oraon, which was marked as Ext.: -5 from before. He has also proved the place of occurrence which is house of the deceased Ram Bilas Oraon with a well situated nearby. He has also proved the statement of Jagmuni Kumari recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which is Exhibit: - 8. Mahendra Ram, P.W. 14 is a formal witness. He is Bench Clerk of Sri Arbind Azad, learned Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. He has proved the confession of the appellant Rajendra Oraon, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which has been marked as Ext.: - 9. Prosecution has also adduced the following documents in evidence:
i) Postmortem reports of the deceased persons, which have been marked Exhibit 1 series.
ii) Signature of witnesses on Inquest reports, which are Exhibit 2 series
iii) Signature of witnesses on seizure lists, which are Exhibit 3 series.
iv) Formal F.I.R. is Exhibit 4.
3|Page
v) Written report is Exhibit 5.
vi) Seizure Lists are Exhibit 6 series.
vii) Inquest reports are Exhibit 7 series.
viii) Page 31 of the case diary is Exhibit 8.
8. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
on 28.02.2001. The defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.
9. The appellant has also adduced the statement of Chhoteya Oroan as D.W. 1 in support of his case. He has stated that police has forced the appellant to confess his guilt. Defence has adduced the statement of Jagmani Kumari recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in evidence, which has been marked Exhibit A with objection.
10. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary available on the record the learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly.
11. Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that learned Trial Court has held the appellant guilty on the basis of his extra judicial confession made before Bhukhla Bhagat, P.W.
11. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court has also considered the confession of the appellant made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. It was further submitted that learned Trial Court has considered the statement of daughter of the deceased namely Jagmuni Kumari, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., who died during the pendency of the Trial. It was further submitted that statement of the appellant under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was not proved by the Magistrate who had recorded his statement. It was submitted that statement of daughter of the deceased namely Jagmuni Kumari under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that she has no knowledge about the occurrence, has not been considered. On these grounds, it was prayed that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant be set aside and appellant be acquitted of the charge.
12. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P. P. has stated that the offence relates to murder of six persons of the same family. Appellant has made his extra
4|Page judicial confession before the sitting M.L.A. of his Constituency namely Bhukhla Bhagat, P.W.-11, who has fully supported the prosecution case. It was further submitted that the appellant has also made his confession before the learned Judicial Magistrate and statement of the daughter of the deceased Jagmuni Kumari, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. shall be read in evidence in light of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offence and has sentenced him accordingly.
13. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.
In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be established, whether: -
(1) The deceased persons namely (i) Ram Bilas Oraon, (ii) Lilwanti Devi (iii) Lalki Devi (iv) Prafulla Oraon (v) Vikash Oraon (vi) Ranthu Oraon had died a homicidal death.
(2) Whether the appellant Rajendra Oraon had committed murder of these six deceased persons?
14. Doctor Kameshwar Thakur, P.W. 1 has performed the post- mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased persons and found the following:
(1) Ranthu Oraon, aged about 4 and 1/2 years: -
Rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. Postmortem staining on different parts of the body was seen. Fine leather froth from mouth of the child was coming. On dissection, the brain membrane and brain were found congested. Pleura was congested. On pressure of Lungs, fine leather froth came out. Pericardium was found congested. Right side of heart was full of blood whereas left side was empty. Water was found in the stomach, large intestine and small intestine, Liver- Spleen and Kidney ware found pale.
In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death of Ranthu Oraon was due to asphyxia because of drowning. Time elapsed since death was within 48 hours. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked exhibit- 1.
(2) Ram Bilas Oraon, aged about 45 years,
5|Page On the same day Doctor held the postmortem examination on the dead body of Ram Bilas Oraon at about 12:30 P.M. and found the following: -
Rigor Mortis was present in all the four limbs and staining was present in all the different parts. On dissection, right side of heart was full whereas left side was empty. Stomach containing undigested rice, small and large intestine were full of gases. He found the following ante mortem injuries: -
(i) One lacerated wound with laceration of underneath brain 2.2'' x 1.5" x brain deep on the left side of the front of forehead.
(ii) One lacerated wound 4.5" x 2.5" x brain deep on back of left side of scalp. There was laceration of the underneath brain.
(iii) Fracture of left Mandible bone.
(iv) Fracture of right Mandible bone.
In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to injury No. (i) and (ii) due to laceration of brain. Time elapsed since death was assessed within 48 hours. The above injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked exhibit- 1/1.
(3) Vikash Oraon, aged about 6 years.
On the same day at about 2:30 P.M. doctor examined his dead body and found the following.
Rigor Mortis was present in all the four limbs.
Watery fine froth was coming from his mouth.
Brain membrane and brain were congested.
Pleura and Lungs were congested.
On suction and pressure over lungs, white water like froth came out.
Pericardium was pale. Left side of heart was empty whereas right side of heart was full.
Fine white leather like froth was coming out of mouth on pressure over chest.
Large intestine and small intestine contained water. Liver and spleen - Pale.
6|Page In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to Asphyxia because of drowning.
Time elapsed since death was assessed within 48 hours. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked exhibit 1/2.
(4) Prafulla Oraon, aged about 5 years.
On the same day at about 1.50 P.M. doctor held postmortem examination on the dead body of Prafulla Oraon and found the following:-
Rigor mortis was found present in all the four limbs. Postmortem staining present in different parts. Fine white leather water like froth coming out of mouth. Brain and brain materials were congested and lungs were bloated. On the pressure of the Section of Lungs, fine water like froth came out. Pericardium was found pale.
Right chamber of heart was full whereas left chamber was empty. On pressure of the chest white water like substance came out. His stomach, large and small intestine contained water. Liver and Spleen were pale.
One lacerated wound 1.2'' x 2'' x scalp deep on right side of scalp. These injuries were antemortem in nature, which might have been caused while throwing the child in the well by the surface of the well. That injury was also possible if the child was thrown into a well and then a piece of stone was thrown on him. The cause of death was Asphyxia due to drowning. Time elapsed since death has been assessed 48 hours. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked exhibit 1/3.
(5) Lilawanti Devi, aged about 32 years.
On the same day at about 11.35 A.M., doctor conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Lilawanti Devi, wife of Ram Bilas Oraon, and found the following:-
Rigor Mortis was present in all the four limbs. Postmortem stain was present in different parts of the body. Right side of heart was full whereas left side of heart was empty. Stomach contained semi-digested rice. Small and large intestines were full of gases.
7|Page The ante mortem injuries were as follows:
(I) One lacerated wound underneath scalp bone fracture and laceration of brain 5.5'' x 3.5" x brain deep on the front of head.
(II) One lacerated wound 1.5'' x .5'' x .5'' on the left side below left eye.
(III) One lacerated wound 2.5'' x .5'' below Injury No. II.
All the injuries were caused by some hard blunt substance, such as, big boulder of 10 to 15 Kgs.
In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was laceration of brain (Injury No. I). Time elapsed since death was assessed within 48 hours. In further opinion of the doctor, from the injuries and the features, it was clear that she was done to death first by Injury No. (I) and thereafter she was thrown into a well. There was no feature of death due to drowning and the Injury No. I was sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked exhibit 1/4.
(6) Lalki Devi, aged about 35 years.
On the same day at about 10.30 A.M. doctor conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Lalki Devi, wife of Ram Bilas Oraon.
Her clothes were found wet.
Rigor Mortis was present in all the four limbs.
Right side of heart was full whereas left side was empty. There was bleeding from nose.
Stomach contained undigested rice.
Small and large intestine were full of gases.
Following ante mortem injuries were found on her body. (I) one lacerated wound 2.5'' x 1.5'' x brain deep on front of forehead right side appeared to be caused by some hard and blunt substance, such as big boulders of 10 to 15 Kgs. of weight.
The death was caused due to Injury No. I, which is the laceration of brain. It was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time elapsed since death was assessed within 48 hours.
He has also stated that from the injuries over the dead body, it
8|Page was clear that the deceased Lalki Devi was done to death by Injury No. 1 and thereafter she was thrown in the well. There was no feature of death due to drowning. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked exhibit 1/5 On perusal of the oral testimony of Doctor Kameshwar Thakur, P.W. 1, it appears that his oral testimony fully corroborates his finding in the post-mortem reports which are Ext: -1 series. Apart from his finding in the postmortem report he has stated in his cross examination that he did not examine the froth, which was coming from the mouth of Ranthu Oraon to ascertain as to whether the froth was due to poisoning, but he deposed that there was no sign of poisoning. In a case of drowning, if water reaches the lungs and intestine, the swelling of the body would depend upon the time during which the dead body remained submerged under water. Puckered swelling appearing in the dead body of Ranthu Oraon, signifies the special features of death due to drowning and it appears on the dead body approximately after 3 to 4 hours depending on several factors like temperature of environment and health of the body. It also appeared to him that Ranthu Oraon remained drowned in water for about 3 to 4 hours.
With reference to the postmortem report of Lalki Devi (Exhibit 1/5) he has deposed that she remained in water after her death for about 5 to 6 hours. He found that Prafful a male child aged about 5 years, Vikash and Ranthu Oraon had died due to drowning, whereas Lalki Devi and Lilawnti Devi had died due to injuries on their head causing laceration to their brains. The death of Ram Bilas Oraon was also due to the injuries on his head causing laceration to his brain.
15. From perusal of inquest reports, Ext: - 7 series, it transpires that the cause of death of Ranthu Oraon was due to drowning, cause of death of deceased Ram Bilas Oraon has been opined to be death due to injuries caused on his person by heavy and blunt substance. Death of deceased Vikash Oraon has been opined to be caused due to drowning, death of Prafful Oraon was caused due to throwing in the well and asphyxia due to drowning, death of Lilawanti Devi was due to lacerated wounds caused by hard and blunt substance and death of deceased Lalki Devi caused by injuries due to lacerated wounds on brain which was caused by hard and
9|Page blunt substance.
16. Bhukhla Bhagat, P.W. 11 has stated that appellant Rajendra Oraon had come to him and had confessed his guilt and had stated that Ram Bilas Oraon was his step brother and he had murdered him. He had also dumped his three children in the well.
17. From perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we come to a finding that the deceased persons had died homicidal death.
As far as the complicity of the appellant Rajendra Oraon in committing the murder of the deceased persons is concerned, from perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witness, it transpires that Bhukhla Bhagat, P.W. 11 has stated that appellant Rajendra Oraon had come to him and confessed that he had murdered Ram Bilas Oraon. He hacked Ram Bilas Oroan by a stone grinder. He has also stated that appellant Rajendra Oraon had confessed of having assaulted both the wives of Ram Bilas Oraon and thereafter he threw them in the well. He has also stated that he threw his three children in the well. This witness has also stated that both the deceased Ram Bilas Oraon and appellant Rajendra Oraon used to frequently quarrel due to which appellant Rajendra Oraon had committed the murder of his entire family. He has also stated that the sole surviving daughter of the deceased Ram Bilas Oraon died due to drowning in a well.
In his cross examination he has stated that he had not chastised the appellant. He has further stated that after the appellant had confessed before him, he handed him over to the police.
18. At the instance of appellant Rajendra Oraon, the stone grinder and heavy stone, which were used in committing murder of the deceased persons were recovered from the well of Ram Bilas Oraon. Shailendra Nath Singh, P.W. 13, in his deposition at paragraph 4 of his deposition has described the place of occurrence, which is house of deceased Ram Bilas Oraon. He has stated that there is a well at a distance of 10 yards from the house, from where stone grinder and heavy stone were recovered. He has also stated that he recorded the statement of Jagmuni kumari. She has stated that the appellant had murdered her father, mother and brothers. She had stated that the appellant had murdered her father by hacking his head by a 10 | P a g e stone grinder. He had assaulted his mother and pushed her in the well. He also pushed her brothers, who were clinging with her mother in the well. Thereafter he pushed her step mother in the well. The appellant had tried to assault her but she escaped from his clutches.
Santosh Oraon, P.W. 8, had provided water pump machine to drain out water from the said Well. When the water was drained out from the well, a stone grinder and a heavy stone were recovered from there. Prosecution has proved the seizure list with regard to recovery of the stone grinder and a heavy stone from the well of Ram Bilas Oraon, which is Ext.:- 6.
Blood stained stick and blood stained vest of the appellant was also recovered from his house as will be apparent from the seizure list Exhibit 6/1.
19. The appellant Rajendra Oraon is also alleged to have confessed his guilt under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has questioned the admissibility of the statement of the appellant as it was not proved by the learned Magistrate. On the contrary, he has relied upon the statement of Jagmuni Kumari recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which has also not been proved by the learned magistrate who had recorded it. Both these statements cannot be read in evidence, as it was not proved by the Judicial Magistrate who recorded it.
20. Mahadeo Oraon P.W. 12 is one of the investigating officers of this case. He has proved the formal F.I.R in evidence which is Exhibit: - 4. He has also proved the Fardbeyan in evidence which is Exhibit: - 5. He has also proved the seizure lists in evidence which are Exhibit: - 6 series. He has also proved the Inquest reports in evidence which are Exhibit: - 7 series. He has also proved the statement of witness Jagmuni Kumari recorded in the paragraph 31 of the case diary in evidence which is Exhibit: - 8. On behalf of the defence, he has proved the statement of witness Jagmuni Kumari in evidence, which was marked Exhibit A with objection.
Shailendra Nath Singh, P.W. 13 is another investigating officer of this case. He has stated at paragraph 6 of his deposition that he had recorded the statement of Jagmuni Kumari, daughter of Ram Bilas Oraon during investigation, as she was the eye witness of the occurrence. She had stated 11 | P a g e that her uncle Rajendra Oraon had assaulted her mother, father, and brothers by a stone grinder due to which his father died. After death of her father, appellant Rajendra Oraon also assaulted her mother and pushed her in the well. He also pushed her brothers in the well. She has further stated that her step mother Lilawanti Devi was pushed by appellant Rajendra Oraon in the well. He also assaulted her brothers and pushed them in the well. Thereafter, he tried to assault her and her maternal grand-father. However, both of them escaped from his clutches. This witness had died during the course of trial and as such her statement could not be recorded during trial. Statement of this witness was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that she had not seen the occurrence as who had murdered the deceased persons. Statement of this witness has not been proved by the learned Judicial Magistrate and as such this statement cannot be read in evidence. Confession of the appellant Rajendra Oraon recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has also not been proved by the magistrate who recorded it and as such his confession recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and also cannot be read in evidence.
21. Now, the evidence available against the appellant Rajendra Oraon is his confession before Bhukhla Bhagat, P.W. 11 and the statement of Jagmuni Kumari, daughter of deceased Ram Bilas Oraon, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. Further material available against the appellant Rajendra Oraon is that at his pointing out, a stone grinder and a heavy stone, which were used in committing murder of the deceased persons, were recovered from the well of the deceased, after the water from the well was pumped out. Blood stained vest of the appellant was also recovered from his house. It is apparent that the learned Trial Court has not held the appellant guilty only on the basis of his extra judicial confession. His extra judicial confession is corroborated by the statement of Jagmuni Kumari, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C (Exhibit:- 8), which will be admissible in evidence under Section 33 of The Indian Evidence Act, which provides as under: -
"Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same 12 | P a g e judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable."
Jagmuni Kumari died during the course of the trial before her evidence could be recorded. She has stated in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. narrating the occurrence, which she had witnessed as an eye witness. Accordingly, statement of Jagmuni Kumari will be admissible under special circumstance per Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act.
His extra judicial confession is corroborated by recovery of stone grinder and heavy rock alongwith his blood stained clothes, which were not in public glare.
The statement of Chhoteya Oroan as D.W. 1, that police has forced the appellant to confess his guilt is contrary to the facts of this case, as the appellant had made extra judicial confession before Bhukhla Bhagat, P.W. 11 and thereafter he was handed over to the police.
22. This is the case of gruesome murder of six members of the same family by the appellant. The prosecution has proved its case that the appellant has committed murder of six members of the same family due to family dispute, by adducing cogent evidence as discussed above. This is not a case where the learned Trial Court has come to the finding of guilty only on the basis of extra judicial confession of the appellant.
We do not find any illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. The order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is also commensurate with the gravity offence and it requires no interference.
23. This Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Ambuj Nath, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
Dated:- 18 / 11 / 2025 Rahul/NAFR 13 | P a g e