Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 722 (JHR)

Chedu Oraon v. State of Bihar

2006-06-19

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
JUDGMENT By Court.-Both the appeals are against the common judgment of conviction dated 8.5.2000 and the order of sentence dated 9.5.2000 passed by Shri Ram Narayan Lal, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohard again Sessions Trial No. 277 of 1989144 of 1990 and thus they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Mr. S. Rahman appeared for the appellant Mahabir Oraon in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2000 and on our request, he assisted the Court and advanced arguments on behalf of appellant Chedu Oraon also since on repeated calls nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant Chedu Oraon. 3. Chedu Oraon, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2000(R), has been convicted for the offence under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Mahabir Oraon, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2000(R), has been convicted under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They have been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they have to remain in jail custody for a further period of one year. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 4. Within four hours of the occurrence, a fard beyan was lodged on 26.2.1998 at 11.30 P.M. by the informant Smt. Shree Devi (P.W 5) daughter of deceased Sukhni Devi. The informant stated that the appellants and one Bahuran Mahli (Acquitted), all residing within the Kisko Police Station, entered her house and demanded jewellery. cash and utensil. When her mother said that she did not have cash. jewellery and they can take the house hold goods, Mahabir Oraon threatened her that they will take away the informant to which she protested. Upon this. Mahabir Oraon inflicted chhura (dagger) blow on the informant between her neck and chest and the blood started oozing. Thereafter Chedu Oraon assaulted her mother who fell down and died after some-time. Bahuran Mahli took a utensil and all fled away. The informant raised alarm on which the villagers assembled. The informant identified the appellants in the light of a Lamp (Dhibri). Thereafter Chedu Oraon assaulted her mother who fell down and died after some-time. Bahuran Mahli took a utensil and all fled away. The informant raised alarm on which the villagers assembled. The informant identified the appellants in the light of a Lamp (Dhibri). She was taken by P.W.12 and others to the hospital where she was being treated. She and her brother (P.W 9) can identify the looted utensil. The informant further stated that she told about the appellants to the persons who had assembled there. 5. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are the witnesses to the seizure of chhura (dagger). utensil and bag which were kept outside the house of Chedu Oraon about which the police told him that the same was recovered from the house of Chedu Oraon. P.W 4 is a Government Officer before whom the looted utensil was identified by the informant. P.W 6 is a witness to the inquest report. P.Ws. 7 and 13 are tendered witnesses. P.W 8 is a witness to the recovery of cover of the dagger from the house of the informant. P.W. 11 is a witness to the fard beyan. P.W. 15 was declared hostile. 6. P.W. 5, the informant, has fully supported her fard beyan. Her evidence is fully supported by P.W. 14, the doctor, who conducted post mortem of the deceased and who examined the injury on the person of P.W. 5, P.W. 14, has found seven incised wounds over the body of the deceased caused by dagger (chhura), due to which, she died. One incised wound was also found on the informant below the survical above the right breast caused by dagger though the same was simple. The doctor has further said that the injury on the informant cannot be caused by fall on nail or any pointed substance. The doctor has further said that the injury on the person of the deceased can be caused by the same weapon. P.W. 5 has further said that Mahabir Oraon was a servant in her house since last 10-12 years who left the work about two years back of the occurrence. P.W. 9, the brother of the informant and P.Ws. 10 and 12, the villagers, are hearsay witnesses and they have fully supported the version of the informant. These witnesses have said that the informant told them the names of the accused persons. P.W. 9, the brother of the informant and P.Ws. 10 and 12, the villagers, are hearsay witnesses and they have fully supported the version of the informant. These witnesses have said that the informant told them the names of the accused persons. The informant had said in her fard beyan that she told several villagers about the occurrence including P.W. 12. She gave out the name of P.W. 12 specifically. P.W. 10 is another villager. 7. Mr. S. Rahman appearing for Mahabir Oraon submitted that he gave only one dagger blow to P.W. 5 as per the allegation but the injury was simple and there was no meeting of minds so far as for the purpose of murder is concerned. He further submitted that Mahabir Oraon has remained in jail for a total period of about more than 12 years. About Chedu Oraon, he submitted that P.W. 5 has said that she did not know Chedu Oraon from before and she had not seen him earlier. 8. We are not inclined to accept that on this ground Chedu Oraon can be given the benefit of doubt. The informant lodged the fard beyan within four hours of the occurrence. The name of the appellants and another accused was mentioned in the first information report. The informant stated that she told their names to the witnesses and P.Ws. 9, 10 and 12 have corroborated the said statement of P.W. 5. The dagger and looted utensil were recovered from the house of Chedu Oraon. There appears no reason why the police will plant these things in the house of Chedu Oraon. However, so far Mahabir Oraon is concerned, we are inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Ahmad that he cannot be convicted for the charge under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as there is nothing to show that he shared the intention to kill the deceased. So far as Chedu Oraon is concerned, there is no escape from the conclusion that he killed the mother of the informant after she declined the demand of cash and jewellery made by the appellant. 9. Seven dagger blows have been found on the person of the deceased and most of them were on the vital parts of the body. Therefore, it is clear that Chedu Oraon had intention to kill the deceased. 9. Seven dagger blows have been found on the person of the deceased and most of them were on the vital parts of the body. Therefore, it is clear that Chedu Oraon had intention to kill the deceased. The lootecd utensil has also been recovered from the house of Chedu Oraon apart from the dagger and bag. In this circumstance, there is no reason to interfere with conviction and sentence of appellant Chedu Oraon. 10. In the result, the conviction and sentence of Chedu Oraon is maintained and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2000(R) is dismissed. The conviction of appellant Mahabir Oraon under section 3021 34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside but his conviction under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He may be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.