Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 374 (JHR)

Ruben Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-15

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.1.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2001, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that PW-8 Gandhur Uraon lodged Fardbeyan on 9.5.2000 at about 12.15 hours to the effect that on previous day i.e. 8.5.2000 Phul Mati Devi (PW-6) and his younger brother (deceased) were at home. When informant returned at about 7 p.m" PW-6 told him that about 6 p.m., there was quarrel between the appellant who happens to be nephew of the informant and the deceased on account of partition of cattle and land on which the appellant wanted to inflict Chhura blow. When the deceased tried to escape, he fell in the field. Then appellant inflicted dagger injuries on his stomach, chest and eye brow and fled away. When PW-6 raised hulla, Gondla Uraon (PW-4), Mannu Uraon (PW-2) and Kali Oraon (not examined) reached there. The informant, his wife and villagers went to the field and found So mar Oraon (since deceased) lying dead. 3. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. PW-1 is the Investigating Officer, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 7 have been declared hostile. PW-5 is the Doctor. P.W. 8 is the informant. P.W. 9 is a formal witness. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that PW-6 has been projected as eye witness, but she is not. The Doctor found four incised wounds caused by dagger on the deceased. PW-6, on whose information, the Fardbeyan was lodged by PW-8, did not narrate the story said to have been given by her to the informant in the F.I.R., namely, that there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased and then the appellant wanted to inflict dagger blow where upon the deceased fled away and the appellant chased• him and when the deceased fell on the ground, the appellant inflicted several dagger blows on him. It further appears that in the F.I.R., it was said that the quarrel took. place in the house, but PW-6 said that when the deceased was returning after grazing cattle, the appellant assaulted him. She further said that before she reached the appellant assaulted the deceased. It further appears that in the F.I.R., it was said that the quarrel took. place in the house, but PW-6 said that when the deceased was returning after grazing cattle, the appellant assaulted him. She further said that before she reached the appellant assaulted the deceased. Then in cross-examination she said that she reached on hulla of the deceased where she saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. The informant PW-8 also changed the story narrated by him in the F.I.R. in his evidence. He did not say that PW-8 said her about quarrel etc. between the appellant and the deceased. He lastly submitted that the appellant is in jail for about 12 years. 5. On the 'other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 6. After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the records, in our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The version of the informant in the F.I.R. and in his evidence; makes his statement doubtful. Similarly, the evidence of PW-6 also becomes' doubtful in view of vital contradiction in the story stated in the F.I.R. and the story made before the court. It is also doubtful whether she has seen the occurrence or not. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.