Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 559 (JHR)

Sukra Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-29

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.9.2000 and the order of sentence dated 29.9.2000 passed by the then VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No.437 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant, Sukra Oraon guilty for committing murder of Dumni Orain convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when one Parvatiya, wife of the brother of the appellant, Sukra Oraon @ Chuitee gave birth of a stillborn child at RMCH, the appellant Sukra Oraon started telling that it was on account of witchcraft being practiced by the deceased Dumni Orain. 3. Further case is that on 25.1.1998 at about 5 a.m. when Dumni Orain, the mother of the informant Birsa Oraon (P.W.2) came out of the house for easing herself, she raised an alarm and on hearing it, when he and his brother Mangra Oraon (P.W.1) came out of the house, they saw the appellant assaulting Dumni Orain with brick, as a result of which, she started bleeding. Since the appellant was having weapon with him, neither the informant Birsa Oraon (P.W.2) nor his brother Mangra Oraon (P.W.1) came near to the appellant, who was telling that on account of her (deceased), wife of his brother had given birth of stillborn child. Meanwhile, both of them went to village for calling people. In the meantime, the appellant, Sukra Oraon and his brother-in-law, Somra Gorain after putting the dead body in front of his house, went away. 4. At about 7.30 a.m. when information was received at Ratu Police Station that some occurrence has taken place in village Fulkal toil, A.S.I, S.C. Jha of Ratu Police Station came to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the informant, Birsa Oraon. On the basis of it, a case was registered and a formal FIR was drawn. Thereafter Subhash Chandra Jha (P.W.7), the then A.S.I took over the investigation, during which he held inquest on the dead body of Dumni Orain and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4). After preparing inquest report, dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Das (P.W.5), who on holding autopsy found the following anti mortem injuries. Abrasion (a) 2 x 1 cm. After preparing inquest report, dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Das (P.W.5), who on holding autopsy found the following anti mortem injuries. Abrasion (a) 2 x 1 cm. bridge of the nose with fracture of underline nozal bone. Lacerated wound (a) 5 x 2 cm. x scalp deep on right perito-occipital region of head. Bruise (a) 7 x 6 cm. on right forehead and adjoining right cheek. (b) 6 x 5 cm. on left forehead. 5. Upon internal examination, defused contusion over left fronto perito temporal scalp was found. There was separation of left temporo perito suture. There was contusion of brain and presence of sub dural blood clot over left hemisphere of brain. 6. According to the doctor, injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.2) with an opinion that death was caused due to head injury which were sufficient to cause death. 7. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant whereas investigation was kept pending against Somra Garain showing him as absconder, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and when the case was committed to the court of sessions, the appellant was put on trial. 8. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. Of them, P.W.1, Mangra Oraon and P.W.2, the informant, Birsa Oraon are the eye witnesses whereas P.W.3, Md. Sahid Alam and P.W.4, Jabbar Ansari are witnesses to the inquest. P.W.4 is also witness to the seizure of brick having hair on it and also earth smeared with blood which had been seized under seizure list (Ext.6). P.W.6, John Tirky did not support the case of the prosecution and thereby he was declared hostile. 9. After closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating evidences were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he simply denied it. 10. Thereupon, the defence examined two witnesses, Kashi Oraon (D.W.1) and Deva Oraon (D.W.2) respectively, whereby they testified that three years before the appellant had gone to the village of Kashi Oraon for sowing potato and he remained there for about 4-5 days. 10. Thereupon, the defence examined two witnesses, Kashi Oraon (D.W.1) and Deva Oraon (D.W.2) respectively, whereby they testified that three years before the appellant had gone to the village of Kashi Oraon for sowing potato and he remained there for about 4-5 days. The defence by adducing those witnesses made an attempt to make out a case of alibi but they failed on being questioned by the prosecution to tell about the dates during which he had gone to the village of Kashi Oraon. 11. The court did not accept the version of the defence witnesses, rather found P.W.1 and P.W.2 trustworthy whose testimonies, according to the court, did find corroboration from the medical evidence and also from the objective finding of the Investigating Officer and thereby the court found the appellant guilty and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as aforesaid which is under challenge. 12. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae submits that none of the witnesses neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2, who claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses are, in fact, not the eye witnesses as according to the testimony of P.W.1 and also P.W.2, the deceased was residing with P.W.1 and on the day of occurrence, when the deceased was assaulted, it was seen, as per the testimony of P.W.1 by P.W.2 but since P.W.2 was never there in the house of P.W.1, he could not have any occasion to see the appellant assaulting the deceased and thereby neither the P.W.1 nor P.W.2 is telling truth. Under the circumstances, the trial court should have rejected the testimonies of both the witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2), 13. As against this, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that though P.W.1 at the first instance has testified that it was P.W.2, the informant, Birsa Oraon, who saw the appellant assaulting the deceased but on the next breath, he did testify that he had also seen the appellant assaulting the deceased and that it is true that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was residing with Mangra Oraon (P.W.1), brother of the informant, Birsa Oraon (P.W.2) but the house/room of P.W.1, as per testimony of P.W.2, is not far away, as he says that the place of occurrence from his house is only 5-10 ft. away which does suggest that, in fact, the witness has spoken out the room as house and as such, the defence on this score cannot take any advantage. Moreover, testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 testifying that the appellant assaulted the deceased with brick get corroboration from the fact that when the police did seize brick, the said brick was smeared with blood and at the same time, hair was also attached to it and further it also get corroboration from the medical evidence whereby the doctor has found injuries over the head and under the circumstances, the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that according to witnesses, P.W.1, Mangra Oraon and P.W.2, Birsa Oraon, when their mother Dumni Orain on the day of occurrence came out of the house in the morning for easing herself, they also came out and then saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with brick. A criticism was made to the effect that when, according to the witnesses, the deceased did not raise alarm, there was no occasion for the witnesses to come out of the house. It is true that nothing is there in the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to the effect that the deceased had ever raised any alarm but at the same time, one cannot forget the fact that it was the time of early morning when the villagers normally get rise to go for easing themselves and therefore, in all probability the witnesses may have awaken when the deceased came out of the house and therefore, it never appears to be unnatural for the witnesses to come out of the house in the early morning. 15. Further we do find that testimonies of both the witnesses to the effect that they saw assaulting the appellant over the head of the deceased get corroboration from the medical evidence whereby doctor has found injury over the skull of the deceased. At the same time, it also get corroboration from the fact that when the Investigating Officer seized brick, it was smeared with blood and hair was also attached to it. 16. At the same time, it also get corroboration from the fact that when the Investigating Officer seized brick, it was smeared with blood and hair was also attached to it. 16. Under the circumstances, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and hence, the same is hereby affirmed. 17. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.