Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 568 (JHR)

Charku Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-05

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal from jail has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No. VII, Ranchi, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 123/04, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1673/03, arising out of Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No. 73/03, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of making payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one month more. 2. The case appearing from the fardbeyan, in brief, is that on 22.06.2003 some altercation took place in between two brothers, namely, Etwa Oraon (deceased) and Charku Oraon (Appellant). Thereafter, the appellant caused assault to the deceased by means of fist. It is further alleged that the appellant brought out a knife and inflicted blows on the neck and abdomen of the deceased, as a result, he sustained injuries and fell down. The informant, who happens to be wife of the deceased, took Etwa to hospital for his treatment but Etwa succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of fardbeyan of Etwari Oraoin, PW6, Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No. 73/03, dated 22.06.2003 under Section 302, IPC against the appellant was registered. 3. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge sheet. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the appellant. Since the offence under Section 302, IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial Case No. 123/04. 4. Charge under Section 302, IPC against appellant Charku Oraon was framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses and proved the documents like fardbeyan, inquest report, post mortem report etc. Learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. 5. Learned counsel Mr. (Dr.) H. Waris, who has been appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court, has submitted that vital contradictions are appearing in the evidence of so-called eye witnesses PW3 and PW6. PW3 happens to be the child witness and he is son of the deceased. According to his statement, recorded in paragraph2 of his deposition, at the time of assault nobody was present. PW3 happens to be the child witness and he is son of the deceased. According to his statement, recorded in paragraph2 of his deposition, at the time of assault nobody was present. Assault to his father had taken place outside the house, whereas the informant PW6, who happens to be wife of the deceased, has stated that altercation between the two brothers commenced inside the room where mother of the deceased was also present. Initially, the appellant gave a blow by means of fist on the face of the deceased. Thereafter, the appellant took out a knife and caused injuries to the deceased on his neck and abdomen. Informant in her fardbeyan has stated that the appellant went home and brought a knife and then caused injuries to the deceased but in her deposition in paragraph5, she says that knife was kept by the appellant in his pocket, to which he took out and caused injuries to the deceased. If the evidence of PW3 is correct then PW6 was not present at the scene of occurrence. 6. Birsa Oraon, PW2 is another brother of the deceased. At one point of time, he says that he was informed about the occurrence by PW3 but again he says that he had witnessed the occurrence himself so the evidence of PW2 is contradictory. PW1 is a formal witness and he had taken the deceased to hospital. Lalu Oraon, PW5 is mother of the deceased and the appellant but she has not given true picture of the occurrence. She has stated that two brothers, namely, Etwa Oraon and Charku Oraon fought with each other. Etwa had sustained injuries on his neck and abdomen. Charku fled away from the place of occurrence and now, he is in jail. Dr. Tulsi Mahto, PW7 has proved the post mortem report and explained the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Pramod Kr. Srivastava, PW8 is the Investigating Officer and he has proved Fardbeyan (Ext.3). He has supported the investigation done by him. During investigation, blood stained shirt of the appellant and blood stained soil were seized. Carbon copy of the seizure list has been proved as Ext.4. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant was not having intention to commit murder. The occurrence took place on a petty cause. He has supported the investigation done by him. During investigation, blood stained shirt of the appellant and blood stained soil were seized. Carbon copy of the seizure list has been proved as Ext.4. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant was not having intention to commit murder. The occurrence took place on a petty cause. The deceased told to his mother as to why she used to go to the house of the appellant though he causes assault to her. After hearing such version from Etwa Oraon, appellant Charku Oraon scuffled with his brother and under that provocation, knife blows were inflicted. The offence does not come within the purview of Section 302, IPC rather the appellant is liable to be punished under Section 304 part-I, IPC and for that, he has already serve out punishment by remaining in jail for more than twelve years. Learned counsel has submitted that conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302, IPC may be converted to one under Section 304 part-I, IPC as because it was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 8. Learned APP has opposed the argument and submitted that within no stretch of imagination this case would be brought within the purview of any exception of Section 300, IPC. Eye witnesses are PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6 and they all are related to both, the appellant as well as deceased. Of course, altercation commenced on a petty cause but further overt act committed by the appellant sufficiently suggests that he was having intention to commit murder and for that, he had inflicted number of blows by means of knife on the person of the deceased. The place of occurrence, as described by the Investigating Officer, indicates that appellant, the deceased and persons residing in the vicinity, were occupying a single room house, therefore, it would not make any difference whether the occurrence took place at the doorstep or outside of the house. It is also disclosed that the room occupied by the deceased was not having door. Minor contradictions are appearing in the statements of PW3 and PW6 and that is quite natural because PW3 is the son of the deceased and he is a child witness, aged about seven years, at the time of deposition before the Court. PW2 happens to be the brother of the deceased and he has described the entire occurrence in his deposition. PW2 happens to be the brother of the deceased and he has described the entire occurrence in his deposition. He has clearly stated that he had witnessed the occurrence. He says that he was informed by PW3 about the occurrence that does not mean he is a hearsay witness. The quarrel held between the two brothers finds support from the evidence of PW5, who is none else but mother. Prosecution has well proved its case and there is no merit in this appeal. 9. After considering the rival submissions, perusing the case record and going through the impugned judgment, we do not feel hesitation to observe that factual aspect of the occurrence has well been proved by PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6. Statements of all the aforesaid witnesses are consistent on the point that the appellant inflicted number of blows by means of knife on the person of the deceased and the injuries so caused by the appellant to the deceased find support from the post mortem report and the evidence of Dr. Tulsi Mahto, PW7. Blood stained shirt belonging to the appellant and blood stained soil were also seized. The seizure witnesses have supported the prosecution case. We do not accept that PW2 is not an eye witness because he is also an attesting witness to the fardbeyan and he was all along present. He had assisted the informant in removing Etwa Oraon to the hospital. It is also clear from the evidence of aforesaid four witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6 that initially occurrence commenced inside the room and thereafter remaining part of the occurrence had taken place outside the room. Contradiction, pointed out by the learned counsel, do not appear to be fatal to the prosecution case, considering that the material witnesses are rustic and illiterate. 10. Now, coming to meet out the argument whether the occurrence committed by the appellant could be considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder? In the case at hand, evidence available indicates that the injuries were caused by means of knife by the appellant and parts of the body selected to cause injuries are neck, face and abdomen. Needless to mention aforesaid parts of the body are vital parts. It reveals from post mortem report that as many as four injuries were caused to the deceased by means of sharp cutting pointed weapon. Needless to mention aforesaid parts of the body are vital parts. It reveals from post mortem report that as many as four injuries were caused to the deceased by means of sharp cutting pointed weapon. It is also to be noted that before the injuries were inflicted the appellant has said “Ki Aaj Badla Sadha Lenge” (fardbeyan). The weapon used , the part of the body selected for causing injuries, and number of blows inflicted, could not suggest that the occurrence would come within any of the exception of Section 300, IPC. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in this criminal appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.