Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 653 (JHR)

Johan Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-07-13

P.P.BHATT, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT: This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 3/12/2002 and order of sentence dated 5/12/2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1999 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also convicting him for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months though both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Sunita Kumari (the deceased) went to 'Jitia Mela' on 13.09.1998 with her family members and friends but did not return to her home. On the next day, the informant learnt that she was seen going with the appellant and after about four days i.e. on 17.09.1998, her dead body was recovered from a well. It is suspected that due to love affair, the appellant killed her and threw her in the well. 3. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that chain of circumstances is not complete and only on the basis of the fact that the appellant was last seen going with the deceased, it will not be safe to uphold the conviction. He has further submitted that there are several contradictions on material points in the evidences. Even the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. He has further submitted that in such cases of circumstantial evidence, it would have been better for the Prosecution to prove motive. He has further submitted that the Doctor has found that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning and water was found in her stomach and lungs and that two abrasions were possible by fall in the well. It is lastly submitted that in any event, the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 12 years by now. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment. 5. We find force in the submissions of Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained only on the ground that the appellant was last seen with the deceased on 13.09.1998 and after about four days i.e. on 17.09.1998, she was found dead in the well. 5. We find force in the submissions of Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained only on the ground that the appellant was last seen with the deceased on 13.09.1998 and after about four days i.e. on 17.09.1998, she was found dead in the well. The cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. The Doctor has found water in the stomach and lungs of the deceased. There is nothing to show that two abrasions found on the body of the deceased, were the cause of death. There are contradictions on material aspects in the evidence. The chain of circumstances is not complete. 6. In the circumstances, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant. This appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 3/12/2002 and order of sentence dated 5/12/2002 is hereby set aside. The appellant is in jail. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.