Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1412 (JHR)

Madra Uraon v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-09

N.N.TIWARI, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT By Court.-The appellant has preferred this jail appeal against the judgment of his conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1998 by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Simdega whereby the appellant has been held guilty of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution was launched on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the informant Juel Kujur (P.W. 4). According to the informant, the son of the deceased, has disclosed in his fardbeyan recorded on 1.1.1998 at 8:00 p.m. that Chaiti Ekka, informant's wife went to the house of the accused-appellant Madra Uraon, who happens to be uncle of informant, for fetching some lime (chunna). There the accused appellant abused her and chased her to assault with an axe. The informant and his father came out of the house and intervened but the appellant continued to abuse her. When they protested, he gave an axe blow to the informant's father Ramu Oraon on his head. Ramu Oraon fell down and succumbed to the said head injury. 3. On the basis of said fardbeyan, the police started investigation and on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. 4. Charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. According to him, he has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He was put on trial. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied to have committed any offence. 5. The prosecution in order to establish charge against the accused-appellant altogether examined 14 witnesses. P.W. 1, Narayan Manjhi and P.W.2, Magernath Mahto, are formal witnesses; P.W. 3, Pagla Uraon, is said to be witness to Inquest; P.W.4, Juel Kujur, informant; P.W.5, Choutha Uraon, is a witness to the Inquest. P.W.6. Stomihi Sara, is the formal witness; P.W.7 Chaiti Ekka, wife of the informant and said to be the eye-witness and a party to the genesis of the occurrence but she has not supported the occurrence and was declared hostile; P.W.8, Jagmohan Mahto, P.W.9, Tatu Singh, P.W. 10, Ropna Singh and P.W. 11, Mahesh Mahto, are said to be co-villagers have also turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case; P.W. 12, Prabhu Singh, is a hearsay witness. P.W. 13 is the doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. They have not supported the prosecution case; P.W. 12, Prabhu Singh, is a hearsay witness. P.W. 13 is the doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved post mortem report (Ext.-5); P.W. 14, Umesh Prasad Singh, is the Investigating Officer. In course of his examination, he has approved the Inquest Report (Ext.-6), seizure list of blood stained axe (Ext.-?) and seizure list of blood stained earth (Ext. -8). 6. Learned trial court on conclusion of trial, relied upon the testimonies of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.13 and P.W. 14 and held the appellant guilty of committing murder of Ramu Oraon and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life as aforesaid. 7. Ms. Nivedita Kundu, who appeared as Amicus Curiae has assailed the impugned order of conviction on the ground inter alia that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellant by cogent legal and credible evidence. The prosecution has also failed to prove the genesis of the case. The material witness, that too wife of the informant has not supported the prosecution version. The foundation of the case itself becomes doubtful. The prosecution has also failed to bring any independent evidence to support/corroborate the prosecution case. Several co-villagers were named as prosecution witnesses. They were also brought as witnesses to the prosecution but all of them have falsified the prosecution case. P.W.3 and P.W.5, who are said to be witnesses to the Inquest, stated in their depositions that the Inquest Report was prepared at the police station. The contents were not known to the witnesses and they were asked to sign the paper without reading and explaining the contents thereof. On close scrutiny of the evidences, it is manifest that P.W. 4, Juel Kujur alone tried to support his version through his testimony, also suffers from vital contradictions and as much as he is highly interested witness and his sole testimony cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. It is an admitted case that there was long standing land dispute between the family of the appellant and the informant. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the vital infirmities in the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has also failed to prove the very basis of the prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the vital infirmities in the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has also failed to prove the very basis of the prosecution. P.W.4, the informant, in paragraph-5 of his deposition clearly stated that on the day of occurrence, the police had taken his statement 2t the police station whereas the Investigating Officer P.W.14 in his statement in paragraph-2 in contrast had stated that fardbeyan was recorded at the place of occurrence. He proved that fardbeyan as Ext.-2. According to the fardbeyan, Ramu Oraon died while they were preparing to take him to hospital but P.W.4 in his deposition in paragraph-5, he stated that his father died while on the way to the hospital at Village-Sarta, 1 km. away from his village. He further stated they took the dead body to the police station and at the police station his statement was recorded. P.W.3 and P.W.5, who were the witnesses to the Inquest, have also stated that the paper was prepared at the police station where they were asked to sign without reading over the contents thereof. But the Investigating Officer contradicted the same and stated that he recorded the fardbeyan at the P.O. and prepared the Inquest Report. The said contradictions in the ocular testimony clearly falsify the prosecution case. P.W.7 Chaiti Ekka, is the informant's wife, has falsified the alleged genesis mentioned in the fardbeyan. The prosecution claimed that the blood stained earth and the incriminating axe were seized but neither incriminating axe nor the blood stained earth have been produced before the court to corroborate the prosecution version. She assertively submitted that it is not at all safe to rely upon the sole testimony of Juel Kujur, who is admittedly inimical to the appellant and who is highly interested witness inasmuch as his testimony is full of contradictions. Though the prosecution has been able to prove the homicidal death of Ramu Oraon but miserably failed to prove the charge of murder of Ramu Oraon by the accused-appellant. The real story behind the death of Ramu Oraon has been suppressed by the prosecution and the appellant has been falsely implicated due to land dispute and enmity. Learned trial court failed to properly appraise and scrutinize the evidences on record and has committed serious error in relying the evidences of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W. 13 and P.W.14. The real story behind the death of Ramu Oraon has been suppressed by the prosecution and the appellant has been falsely implicated due to land dispute and enmity. Learned trial court failed to properly appraise and scrutinize the evidences on record and has committed serious error in relying the evidences of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W. 13 and P.W.14. She urged that the impugned judgment is neither supported by the legal evidences and cogent facts nor by principles of law and the same is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. Swapan Majhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, strenuously tried to support the impugned judgment. He urged that the learned trial court has rightly considered the evidence of P.W.4 informant and the corroboration evidences of P.W. 3, P.W.5, P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 and has rightly convicted the appellant for the charge of murder of Ramu Oraon. The contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be vital, looking to the background of the witnesses. The witnesses are villager and they were examined after lapse of couple of years and by the passage of time, it is difficult to correlate the incident. He submitted that though the informant's wife Chaiti Ekka has been declared hostile in view of the eye witness to the murder of the deceased, the genesis does not losses its importance in the instant case. Juel Kujur, the son of the deceased (P.W.4) has given clear statement of the incident and fully supported the version in the fardbeyan regarding the chasing of the P.W.7 and on intervention, giving the fatal axe blow on the deceased Ramu Oraon. P.W.13, Dr. Chandra Nath Jha, who held the post mortem on the dead body, has found the said injury. The medical evidence fully corroborated the ocular testimony of the eye witness, the prosecution case has been also supported by the Investigating Officer. He had proved fardbeyan, F.I.R., Inquest Report, Seizure Report of axe. Seizure Report of blood stained earth. Only for the prosecution failure to bring the Inquest Report and the incriminating axe and blood stained earth in evidence, other legal evidences cannot be ignored. So far contradiction in the recording of the statement is concerned, the same does not vitiate the other relevant evidences on record. 9. Seizure Report of blood stained earth. Only for the prosecution failure to bring the Inquest Report and the incriminating axe and blood stained earth in evidence, other legal evidences cannot be ignored. So far contradiction in the recording of the statement is concerned, the same does not vitiate the other relevant evidences on record. 9. Having heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned A.P.P., we have scrutinized the evidences and facts and materials on record. On perusal of fardbeyan, we find that genesis of the occurrence was the visit of the informant's wife to the house of the appellant to get some lime. It has been alleged that thereafter the appellant abused and chased her and on intervention by the informant and his father, the appellant gave a heavy blow on the head of the informant's father which proved to be vital causing death of Ramu Oraon. The informant's wife Chaiti Ekka has been examined as P.W.7. In paragraph no.1 she stated that she cannot say how Ramu Oraon died. She has also stated that police has not taken her statement. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. By the statement of P.W.7, the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of the occurrence. According to prosecution there were two eye witnesses, P.W.4, the informant and P.W.7 his wife Chaiti Ekka. Chaiti Ekka has not supported the Prose9ution. There remains the sole testimony of so-called eye witness Juel Kujur (P.W. 4). On examination of his evidence, we find that he has also made vacillating statements from stage to stage. In his fardbeyan, he has stated that they were preparing to take his father to the hospital but in the meanwhile he died but in paragraph no. 5 of his deposition, he has stated that his father died on the way at Village-Sarta, 1 km. away from his house. He, at one place stated that his statement was recorded at the place of occurrence but subsequently he stated that his statement was taken at the police station. Admittedly, there was land dispute between the family of the informant and the appellant. He has stated that at one time Panchayati was held but the decision was not acceptable by his father. Thus, it cannot be denied that he is highly interested witness. P.W.3 Pagla Uraon and P.W.5 Choutha Uraon, who were named as witnesses of the Inquest, have not supported the same. He has stated that at one time Panchayati was held but the decision was not acceptable by his father. Thus, it cannot be denied that he is highly interested witness. P.W.3 Pagla Uraon and P.W.5 Choutha Uraon, who were named as witnesses of the Inquest, have not supported the same. They have stated that some paper was prepared but the contents thereof, was not known to them. The signatures were obtained on the paper in the police station. Other co-villagers who were arrayed as prosecution witnesses namely P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W. 11 did not support the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. 10. On overall appraisal of the evidences on record, we find that Juel Kujur (P.W.4) is the only witness who supported the prosecution version that this appellant had given axe blow on Ramu Oraon which caused his death. The sole testimony of P.W.4 is not of unblemished quality to wholly rely upon for conviction of the appellant on the charge of murder. We find substance in the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that such vacillating evidences cannot be taken as the full proof evidence particularly when the witness is highly interested. Though, the learned trial court has also considered the evidences of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W. 13 and P.W.14, their consideration appears to be lope sided. ignoring the vital contradictions and infirmities in the quality of the said evidences. 11. In view of the above discussions, appellants conviction cannot sustain. We are unable to concur with the finding of the learned court below. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and consequently the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. We are informed that appellant is in custody. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 13. Before we part, we appreciate the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae.