Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 433 (JHR)

Ranthu Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-08

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2003 and 02.09.2003 respectively passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial No.188 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 236 of 2002 arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No. 16 of 2002 whereby both the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.04.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. while the informant was sitting with other villagers at the side of road, his daughter Lalo Orain informed that her mother-in-law Janki Orain has been killed by Ranthu Oraon and Goindi Orain and this occurrence of murder has taken place in the lane falling between the house of Rajeshwar Singh and Bania Sahu. After receiving such information, the informant rushed to the place and found his wife Janki Orain lying dead having injuries on her head caused by sharp cutting weapon. Fardbeyan of Porha Oraon PW6 was recorded on 23.04.2002 at 6.30 a.m. at village Umra. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan so recorded, Gumla, Palkot P.S. Case No.16 of 2002 dated 23.04.2002 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants was registered. The investigation was carried out, inquest report and seizure list were prepared, post mortem on the dead body of Janki Orain was conducted and after collecting evidence, chargesheet against the appellants was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.188 of 2002. Charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses whereas the appellants also got examined Raghunandan Sahu DW1 in their defence. The learned trial judge, placing reliance on the evidence and documents on record, held the appellants guilty and sentenced them, as indicated above. 4. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that motive assigned by the informant PW6 and his daughter Lalo Orain PW5 is not tenable. The appellants have been convicted only on the solitary testimony of Lalo Orain PW5 who is daughter of the deceased and highly interested witness. 4. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that motive assigned by the informant PW6 and his daughter Lalo Orain PW5 is not tenable. The appellants have been convicted only on the solitary testimony of Lalo Orain PW5 who is daughter of the deceased and highly interested witness. She has admitted in her deposition that appellants, who are her father-in-law and mother-in-law, were not happy because the marriage between Lalo Orain and Birsa Oraon was solemnised according to their choice and wish. Furthermore, the informant was not living in her matrimonial home and she had been giving preference to her stay with her parents. No other villager has supported the prosecution case though PW5 admits that villagers had also assembled. Lalit Oraon PW2, Pucha Oraon PW3 and Manbahal Pradhan PW4 have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. Porha Oraon PW6 informant, is husband of the deceased. He is also an interested witness. According to DW1 the occurrence took place on the following day of Ramnavami festival. On the eve of festival the villagers use to consume rice beer and liquor. The deceased was also habitual of consuming liquor and she had fallen in drunken state and sustained injuries and died. The trial judge has not assigned valid reason for discarding evidence of DW1 Raghunandan Sahu. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is highly erroneous and liable to be suspended. 5. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that defence counsel conducting the trial on behalf of appellants did not bring on record that except PW5 Lalo Orain anybody else had witnessed the occurrence. According to evidence of PW5 she was watching T.V. and she heard hulla from outside. When she met her mother (deceased), she told that the appellants are planning to kill her. Thereafter the deceased along with PW5 proceeded to search informant but on the way in the lane falling between the house of Rajeshwar Singh and Bania Sahu both the appellants appeared, Goindi Orain caught hold of Janki and Ranthu Oraon inflicted injury by sharp cutting weapon. Seeing the occurrence, due to fear PW5 rushed to search her father and lastly she found him sitting on the road with other villagers. Accordingly, the matter was reported to police and fardbeyan of Porha Oraon was recorded. Seeing the occurrence, due to fear PW5 rushed to search her father and lastly she found him sitting on the road with other villagers. Accordingly, the matter was reported to police and fardbeyan of Porha Oraon was recorded. The informant PW6 and eye witness PW5 have fully supported the prosecution case. Dr. Ajit Kumar Agrawal PW1 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Janki and two incised wounds on head were found and those two injuries were fatal. The third injury was also available near the left ear of the deceased. Sadanand Hembram is the Investigating Officer and he has been examined as PW7. He has proved the inquest report, seizure list, fardbeyan and formal F.I.R. It is submitted that the trial judge has rightly rejected the evidence of DW1 whose residence is at a distance of 10 k.m. from the place of occurrence. Furthermore, he was not sure about the injuries caused to the deceased. He has deposed on the basis of information given to him by informant Porha Oraon but Porha Oraon did not support the contention made by DW1. The appellants have rightly been held guilty and the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial judge need no interference. 6. After hearing rival arguments we have gone through the case record, evidences and documents available and the judgment impugned. From the evidence available on record, we do not find that except PW5 anybody else was present at the place of occurrence at the time of assault. Under such circumstances, the court has to consider evidence of sole eye witness. We have carefully gone through the deposition of PW5. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was sent by her husband who was employed in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellants) wanted to have that money but it was deposited in the bank by PW5. Due to above reason they were not happy with their daughter-in-law Lalo Orain PW5. It is necessary to mention that matrimonial house of Lalo Orain and her parents house are situated in the same village. The evidence on record further indicates that appellants were not happy because their daughter-in-law PW5 was giving preference to live with her parents but PW5 has stated that whenever her husband used to come to village, she had been living with him. The evidence on record further indicates that appellants were not happy because their daughter-in-law PW5 was giving preference to live with her parents but PW5 has stated that whenever her husband used to come to village, she had been living with him. Be that as it may, evidence on record suggest that appellants were not happy either with the parents of their daughter-in-law Lalo Oraoin or with Lalo Orain. PW5 has said when she heard hulla, she came out of the house and met with her mother Janki. It was told by Janki that appellants are intending to assault her. Apprehending danger the deceased with her daughter PW5 proceeded to search Porha Oraon (husband of the deceased). On the way they were intercepted by the appellants near the house of Rajeshwar Singh, appellant Goindi Orain caught hold of Janki and appellant Ranthu Oraon inflicted blows by means of sharp cutting weapons. At the time of occurrence presence of any other witness has not been brought on record. Detail cross-examination has been done to PW5 but no question on the point of manner of occurrence or the place of occurrence have been put to her. Formal question regarding relation of PW5 with her in-laws (appellants) were put to her. We do not find any material contradiction or any other material on record to disbelieve or discard the testimony of PW5. From the evidence of PW1 we find that death of Janki was homicidal. Two incised wounds were found on her head, one incised wound muscle deep below left ear was noticed. Injury nos.1 and 2, according to opinion of the doctor, were sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Therefore, evidence of PW5 find support from post mortem report (Exhibit-1) and the evidence of doctor PW1. The informant has fully supported the prosecution case and corroborated the evidence of PW5. We do not find laches on the part of the Investigating Officer. The occurrence took place on 22.04.2002 at 8.00 p.m. and on the following morning at about 6.30 a.m. fardbeyan was recorded. Immediately thereafter inquest report was prepared, blood stained soil was collected from the place of occurrence and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and the time elapsed since death till post mortem examination further corroborates the time of occurrence. Immediately thereafter inquest report was prepared, blood stained soil was collected from the place of occurrence and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and the time elapsed since death till post mortem examination further corroborates the time of occurrence. Considering all these aspects, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. 7. Appellant Goindi orain is on bail, her bail bond is hereby cancelled. She is directed to surrender before the convicting/successor court within six weeks from today failing which the convicting/successor court shall take all endeavour to secure her attendance by issuing warrant of arrest and processes and shall further proceed to forfeit the bail amount after serving notice to the bailors.