Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1179 (JHR)

Rajnath Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2006-09-12

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. The sole appellant, Rajnath Oraon has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo RI for life by judgment dated 22.6.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 561 of 1998 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Pamalau at Daltonganj. 2. In short the prosecution case is that on 15.4.1998 at about 8 p.m. while the informant Suresh Oraon and his father Baijnath Oraon (the deceased) were taking their dinner in their house, the maternal grand father of the informant Deonarain Oraon (PW 3) came there and he also took dinner. After taking their dinner, the father of the informant asked him to go for sleep and he himself went out along with the maternal grand father of the informant to see him of. After a while the maternal grand father of the informant came back and informed the informant that his father has been killed and thereafter the family members rushed to the place of occurrence where they saw that Baijnath Oraon was lying in injured conditions with profuse bleeding. They also saw the accused/appellant Rajnath Oraon who was none else than the brother of deceased having a dagger in his hand and at that time he also threatened the informant and others to flee away from that place otherwise they would also be killed. In the meantime several neighbouring people assembled there and thereafter the informant with the help of neighbours brought his injured father to the hospital but he succumb to the injuries. The cause of the occurrence to be land dispute between the parties. 3. In order to establish the charges altogether six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. It is important to note that even according to the prosecution, the only eye-witness to the occurrence is PW 3 but he has been declared hostile by the prosecution since he specifically said that he did not see the occurrence. 4. PW 1 Ratani Orain is the wife of the deceased, PW 2 Kamla Orain is the wife of the informant i.e. daughter-in-law of the deceased. PW 4 Suresh Oraon is the informant himself. PW 5 is Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh who held the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased whereas PW 6 is the Investigating Officer. 5. PW 1 Ratani Orain is the wife of the deceased, PW 2 Kamla Orain is the wife of the informant i.e. daughter-in-law of the deceased. PW 4 Suresh Oraon is the informant himself. PW 5 is Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh who held the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased whereas PW 6 is the Investigating Officer. 5. According to the evidence of the doctor PW 5 who held the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased. (i) Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep over mid frontal region of head. (ii) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep over left eye. (iii) Incised wound 1" x 1/6" x bone deep above aforesaid wound No. (i). (iv) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/6" x bone deep on right side of forehead (right side of wound No. (iii). (v) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x penetrating deep into the brain matter after fracturing underneath bone i.e. right parietal region of skull, crush fracture of right parietal region of skull extending towards right forehead and wide spread laceration/bleeding from the brain matter lying underneath. According to doctor all the injures were indicted by heavy and sharp cutting weapon. 6. Though in the evidence in Court, the doctor. PW 5 has stated that the injuries may be caused by "Chura" but he has admitted in his evidence that he has not mentioned the said fact in the post-mortem report: that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by "Chura". According to the prosecution itself, the appellant was seen by the witnesses holding a "Chura" in his hand but the injuries which has been found on the person of the deceased, as stated by the doctor PW 5, were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and "Chura" by no means can be said to be sharp and heavy weapon. Therefore, it creates doubt on the prosecution case that this appellant had killed the deceased. 7. In view of the fact that sole eye-witness to the occurrence PW 3 Deonarain Oraon has been declared hostile and a grave doubt is created by the medical evidence regarding the injuries and therefore, nothing remains on the record to connect this appellant with the murder of the deceased Baijnath Oraon. 7. In view of the fact that sole eye-witness to the occurrence PW 3 Deonarain Oraon has been declared hostile and a grave doubt is created by the medical evidence regarding the injuries and therefore, nothing remains on the record to connect this appellant with the murder of the deceased Baijnath Oraon. The Investigating Officer has also stated in his evidence that there was land dispute between the parties, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that for the said land dispute the appellant may have been implicated by he informant party. 8. In view of the above discussions and findings, we hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge of murder against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant cannot be sustained. Consequently this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant is in custody, he is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.