Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 575 (JHR)

Mangara Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2012-04-16

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.6.2004 and order of sentence dated 17.6.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2002/Sessions Trial No. 236 of 2002 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years u/s 307/34 I.P.C. However, both the sentences were run concurrently. It appears that the accused Mohan Rai has been shown absconder in the charge-sheet. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Smt. Tara Devi (informant-P.W.1-eye witness) lodged Fardbeyan on 14.6.2000 at about 8.45 that about 7.00 A.M., she alongwith her younger daughter Sarita Devi P.W. 2 and alongwith her husband Peeru Rai (deceased) went out of the house to search their ox. But, suddenly appellant Sakhi Rai having Barchi in his hand, appellant Mangara Oraon having an axe and accused Mohan Rai having Basula in his hand, came running to kill her husband. Her husband ran to save his life and entered in the house of his daughter Pinki Devi (P.W. 3), but all the three accused persons chased and caught him in the Angan of P.W. 3. The appellant Mangara Oraon assaulted Peeru Rai by axe on his head causing bleeding injuries, due to which, he fell down. Then, appellant, Sakhi Rai assaulted on his cheek by Barcha causing bleeding injury, then Mohan Rai assaulted him by Basula on his back. The informant reached there to save her husband, but, appellant Sakhi Rai assaulted her by a brick lying there causing her injuries. Her husband died on the spot. Due to fear, her daughters Sarita Devi and Pinki Devi started raising alarm, on which, people assembled there, then the accused persons fled away. It was alleged that cause of incident was an old enmity over land. There was also a proceeding u/s 107 Cr. P.C. pending between the parties. On the previous day, when the informant party were ploughing their field, the appellants threatened the workers and forcibly took away the ox and plough. The informant was treated in the hospital. 3. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The informant was treated in the hospital. 3. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. He also submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated and they are aged persons and in jail for about 11 years. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 5. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in this case. P.W.1-Tara Devi is the informant. She is the wife of the deceased and injured eye witness. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the daughters of the informant and the deceased and they are also the eye witnesses. P.Ws. 4 and 6 are other eye witnesses. P.W. 5 has seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence with weapons in their hands. P.W. 7 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem on the deceased. He found three incised wounds on the head, cheek and back, as narrated by the informant. The injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons. The cause of death was injury no. 1. P.W. 8 is the Doctor, who examined P.W. 1. He found three lacerated wounds on her head caused by hard and blunt substance, though they were simple in nature. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer. 6. After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the materials on record, in our opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants. The prosecution case in short is that due to an old land dispute between the parties, the appellants alongwith absconding accused Mohan Rai disturbed ploughing the field by the informant party on 13.6.2000 and took away the ox and plough forcibly. Thereafter, on 14.6.2000, the appellants and Mohan Rai suddenly came armed with sharp cutting weapons. The deceased ran for life. The appellants and the other accused chased him. He entered into the house of P.W. 3. The accused persons also entered into the house and assaulted the deceased with the weapons in their hands on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, causing his death on the spot. 7. There are five eye witnesses in this case P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6. P.W.1 is the informant. She is injured eye witness and wife of the deceased. 7. There are five eye witnesses in this case P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6. P.W.1 is the informant. She is injured eye witness and wife of the deceased. She has fully supported the prosecution case. Similarly, P.Ws. 2 & 3 Daughters of the deceased have also fully supported the prosecution case. P.Ws. 4 & 6 are the villagers and independent eye witnesses. They have also fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 5 is also a villager, who has seen the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence with weapons in their hands. P.W.7 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem. P.W. 8 is the Doctor, who examined the injuries of P.W. 1. 'The medical evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 fully corroborates the ocular testimony. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has also fully supported the prosecution case. The Fardbeyan was lodged without any delay. There is nothing to indicate false implication of the appellants. The common intention of the appellants is also clear from the materials on record noticed above. Appellant Sakhi Rai assaulted the informant by brick on her head repeatedly i.e. thrice, when she tried to save her husband, though she sustained simple injuries. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is set aside, but their conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C. is upheld. Appellant Sakhi Rai is further convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. However, both the sentences will run concurrently. 9. This appeal, thus, stands disposed of.