Jharkhand High Court
Sukra Oran vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2015
Equivalent citations: 2015 (4) AJR 364
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad, Pramath Patnaik
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 508 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2004 and order of sentence
dated 23.07.2004 passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track
Court No.IV, Ranchi, in Session Trial No.12 of 2003)
Sukra Oraon, son of late Biga Oraon, resident of Village Chund, P.S. Mandar,
District Ranchi. ... ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
By Court: The appellant, was put on trial, on the accusation of committing murder of one
Biga Oraon. The trial court, having found the appellant guilty for the said charge, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 22.07.2004 and sentenced him accordingly, vide its order dated 23.07.2004 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.07.2002 at about 4 P.M., while the deceased-Biga Oraon was returning home from Brombey market on his bicycle and reached near Sarna Asthan of his village, the appellant-Sukra Oraon inflicted tangi blow over the neck of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased became seriously injured, who was taken home by one Ramanand Nayak (P.W.6) on his bicycle. Thereupon he was brought first to Mandar Hospital where first aid was given and then was referred to RMCH.
3. To that effect, a written report (Ext.1) was given to the Officer-in-Charge of Mandar Police Station on 06.07.2002 itself. Upon which, a case was registered as Mandar P.S. Case No.39 of 2002 under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said written report, it had been stated by the informant-Panchu Oraon (P.W.8) that the appellant, by claiming himself to be the son of the deceased- Biga Oraon, was asking share in the property of Biga Oraon, but Biga Oraon was denying that he is his son and that was the reason, the appellant committed murder of Biga Oraon.
4. At RMCH, the injured Biga Oraon remained under treatment until 17.07.2002 when at 3.30 P.M. he died. Immediately, thereafter, Chumani Devi (P.W.2)- wife of Biga Oraon, gave her fardbeyan (Ext.3), which was recorded by S.I. Ram Eqbal Mochi (P.W.7) at RMCH itself. He also seems to have held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4). Subsequently, one Irshad Ahmad (P.W.4), took up the investigation and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (P.W.9) and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-
1. Slaughing wound 4 x1 cm on front and upper part of neck. Depth is upto the trachea and the trachea is punctured.
2. 2x1 cmx trachea deep with tracheotomy.
3. Stiched wound partially united 4x1/2 cm x soft tissue on right side of chin.
4. Surgical stiched wound (partially united) 16cms long on front of abdomen starting from amblicus to zyphysternun.
5. Internal:- there was stiched wound of stomach wall along with omentum.
The Doctor issued post-mortem examination report (Ext.5) with an opinion that the death was caused due to peritonitis on account of injuries, which were ante mortem.
5. The I.O., in the meantime, recorded the statement of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, the cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was taken against the appellant.
6. Accordingly, when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial, during which, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Of them, P.W.1-Bihari Prasad, P.W.2-Chumani Devi-widow of the deceased, P.W.5-Sanicharwa Oraon, P.W.6- Ramanand Nayak, P.W.8-Panchu Oraon (informant) and P.W.10-Shashi Kumari-daughter of the deceased are the hearsay witnesses, who derived knowledge either from one person or other. P.W.3- Niraj Kumari, daughter of the deceased, claimed herself to be an eye witness. It be stated that P.W.2-Chumani Devi, widow of the deceased and P.W.10-daughter of the deceased, though are the hearsay witnesses, but they have testified that when injured Biga Oraon brought to home, he disclosed to them, that it was the appellant, who had inflicted injury upon him.
7. After closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating evidences/materials appearing against the appellant was put under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied.
8. Thereupon, the trial court, having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of P.W.2-Chumani Devi and P.W.3- Niraj Kumari, did find the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased- Biga Oraon and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge.
9. Mr. Akhouri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that admittedly, P.W.2-Chumani Devi is not an eye witness and that P.W.3-Niraj Kumari, daughter of the deceased, though has claimed herself to be an eye witness to the occurrence, but the testimony of P.W.3 gets belied from the evidence of P.W.6 Ramanand Nayak, who did depose that while he was returning home, he found Biga Oraon in the injured condition over the road to whom he took to his house on his bicycle, which fact even has been admitted by P.W.1 and P.W.10-daughter of the deceased and, thereby neither P.W.2 nor P.W.3 can be said to be the eye witness and hence, the trial court did commit illegality in putting reliance upon the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3, for holding the appellant guilty.
10. As against this, learned APP appearing for the State submits that the defence has not elicited anything from P.W.3-Niraj Kumari-daughter of the deceased and, thereby her evidence to the effect that this appellant assaulted her father with Tangi and Chura remains intact and, thereby, the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, who was inimical to the deceased, as he was claiming himself to be the son of Biga Oraon whereas Biga Oraon always denied this fact and was not inclined to give share of his property to the deceased.
11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that it was P.W.8-Panchu Oraon (informant), brother of the deceased, who did submit a written report (Ext.1) before the Officer-in-Charge of Mandar Police Station, stating therein that it was the appellant, who inflicted tangi injury on the person of the deceased, as a result of which, he became seriously injured. The written report never indicates as to whether he was an eye witness but in course of the evidence, P.W.8 has admitted that he never saw the appellant assaulting the deceased.
12. Same is the case with P.W.2, Chumani Devi, the widow of the deceased, who, according to her evidence, had derived knowledge about the occurrence from his son- Somra Oraon, who has not been examined by the prosecution and, thereby, she remains to be an hearsay witness.
13. Status of other witnesses, e.g. P.W.1 Bihari Prasad, P.W.-5 Sanicharwa Oraon and even P.W.10-Shashi Kumari-daughter of the deceased is the same, who had no occasion to see the occurrence, rather they derived knowledge from one person or other person. However, from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.10, it does appear that when injured-Biga Oraon, was brought home, he disclosed to them that it was the appellant, who had inflicted injury, but P.W.10, in her cross-examination, has testified that her father had never told about he being assaulted by the appellant, rather she came to know about it from her mother-P.W.2, who in her evidence, has stated that when her husband was brought home, he disclosed that it was the appellant who had inflicted injury upon him, but surprisingly, the said fact had never been stated by her, in her fardbeyan, which was given immediately after the death of the deceased.
14. Furthermore, we do find from the evidence of P.W.6- Ramanand Nayak that while he was returning home, he found Biga Oraon in the injured condition over the road to whom he took to his house on his bicycle, which fact has even been admitted by the P.W.1 and P.W.10 in his/her cross examination. P.W.6 has categorically deposed that while he was taking Biga Oraon to his house, he did not disclose the name of any of the assailants.
15. In that event, that part of the testimony of P.W.2 that she was told by the deceased about the appellant, assaulting him, cannot be believed on account of the aforesaid reasons and also on account of the reason that she was quite annoyed with this appellant, as the appellant was claiming share in the property of Biga Oraon, by taking a plea that he happened to be the son of Biga Oraon whereas Biga Oraon was denying that fact. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, who has claimed to be the eye, we, in view of the evidence of P.W.6, find her untrustworthy. All these facts were never taken into account by the trial court and, thereby, the trial court committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence, which is hereby, set aside.
16. In the result, the appellant is acquitted of the charge and is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
17. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 15th of September, 2015 Ravi/N.A.F.R