Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1638 (JHR)

Bhakhlu Oraon @ Habil Lakra v. State of Jharkhand

2017-09-12

ANANDA SEN, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 2nd of July, 2008 and Order of sentence dated 7th of July, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 2005, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. The prosecution case was instituted, on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Bandhna Oraon, who is the husband of the deceased, recorded at his village Aura Bahar, Amba Toli, in the district of Simdega, on 4.8.2005 at 11.30 A.M. It is alleged in the fardbeyan that on 3.8.2015, at about 5.30 P.M. in the evening, Jaura Oraon, the younger son of the informant, was being assaulted by the accused Bhakhlu Oraon, and upon the alarm raised by him, the informant and his wife went to his rescue, whereupon Bhakhlu Oraon assaulted the wife of the informant by balua (sharp cutting weapon), causing injuries on her neck, due to which, she died at the spot. There was heavy rain at the time of occurrence. It is alleged that after assaulting the deceased, the accused, who was armed with balua and knife, threw away the said weapons and fled away. Due to heavy rain in the night, the police could not be informed. The police was informed in the morning and upon arrival of the police, fardbeyan of the informant was recorded, on the basis of which, T. Tangar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 228 of 2005 was instituted, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the I.O. of the case. The defence is the denial of charge, but no defence evidence was adduced in this case. 5. P.W.-5 Bandhana Oraon is the informant in this case, who has stated that the occurrence had taken place about one year ago in the evening and upon hearing the noise, his wife came out of the house. Bhakhlu Oraon, who was armed with balua pushed his wife, due to which, she fell down on the ground, whereafter the accused assaulted her by balua, giving three assaults on her neck, due to which, his wife died at the spot. The informant has identified the accused in the Court and he has stated that on the next day, the police came to the village and recorded his fardbeyan, which was read over to him and finding it true, he put his thumb impression. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination. 6. The other witnesses, P.W.-1 Dhomro Oraon, P.W.-2 Wilson Toppo, P.W.-3 Bandhain Orain, the daughter-in-law of the deceased and P.W.-4 Jaura Oraon, the son of the deceased, have also supported the prosecution case as eyewitnesses, though, P.W.-1 Dhomro Oraon, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased. However, all the other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case, as the eyewitnesses, stating that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased by balua, causing injuries on the neck of the deceased, due to which, she died at the spot. P.W.-4 Jaura Oraon, who is son of the deceased, has also stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused was assaulting him and upon the alarm raised by him, his mother came to save him, when she was assaulted by the accused, causing her death at the spot. P.W.-4 Jaura Oraon, who is son of the deceased, has also stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused was assaulting him and upon the alarm raised by him, his mother came to save him, when she was assaulted by the accused, causing her death at the spot. There is nothing of much importance in the cross-examination of these witnesses. 7. P.W.-6 Dr. Krishna Kumar Sharma had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 5.8.2005 and had found the following injuries:- (1) Incised would of size about 2”x ½ ” x ½ " deep below chin on right side of neck. (2) Incised wound about 4” x ½” x 1” deep on anterior part of lower neck cutting trachia and oesophagus. (3) Incised would about 1 ½” x ½” x ½” on anterior aspect between shoulder and neck cutting left clavicle. This witness has stated that all the injuries were caused by heavy cutting object, such as balua and were ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death was asphyxia, haemorrhage and shock. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. 8. P.W.-7 Kapildeo Prasad Keshari is the I.O. of the case. This witness has also stated that on 4.8.2005, he was posted as Officer-in-charge of T. Tangar Police Station and he got the information that one lady was murdered in the village-Aura Bahar, Amba Toli. He made the Station Diary entry No. 69 dated 4.8.2005 and proceeded for the place of occurrence, where he reached at about 11.30 A.M. and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Bandhana Oraon, which was read over to him, upon which the informant and the witnesses put their thumb impressions. He has identified the fardbeyan to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-3. He has also proved the endorsements made on the fardbeyan, which were also marked Exhibits-4, 4/1 and 4/2. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and has given the description of the place of occurrence, which is the vacant land between the houses of the informant and the accused. He also prepared the inquest report of the dead body, which he has proved and same was marked Exhibit-5. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and has given the description of the place of occurrence, which is the vacant land between the houses of the informant and the accused. He also prepared the inquest report of the dead body, which he has proved and same was marked Exhibit-5. He has also stated that he sent the dead body for the post-mortem examination and he also recovered the weapons of offence, i.e., balua and knife from near the place of occurrence and also prepared the seizure list, which he has proved as Exhibit-6. He produced the recovered weapons in the Court, which were marked material Exhibits-I and II. He has stated that the accused could not be apprehended by him, who surrendered in the Court on 23.8.2005. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say as to by whom he was informed about the occurrence and the weapons of offence were not recovered upon pointing out of any one. He has stated that the weapons of offence were not stained with blood and he had not found blood at the place of occurrence, because due to heavy rain, the blood was washed away. 9. On the basis of these evidences, the accused-appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as there are discrepancies in the evidences of the eyewitnesses. It is submitted that some eyewitnesses have stated that two blows were given by the accused, whereas the informant has stated that three blows by balua were given by the accused upon the deceased. Learned counsel, further submitted that though in the F.I.R., it is stated that the occurrence had taken place due to enmity, but enmity has not been proved by the prosecution, and as such, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. Learned counsel, further submitted that though in the F.I.R., it is stated that the occurrence had taken place due to enmity, but enmity has not been proved by the prosecution, and as such, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, as all the eyewitnesses have fully supported the prosecution case stating that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased by balua on her neck, causing injuries. The ocular evidences of the eyewitnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. Krishna Kumar Sharma, who found three incised wounds on the neck of the deceased. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court below. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that P.W.-5 Bandhana Oraon, who is informant in the case, P.W.-3 Bandhain Orain, daughter-in-law of the deceased and P.W.-4, Jaura Oraon, son of the deceased, have fully supported the prosecution case that upon alarm raised by the son of the deceased, while he was being assaulted by the accused-appellant, his mother came to his rescue, whereupon she was assaulted by the accused Bhakhlu Oraon by balua on her neck. All the eyewitnesses have stated that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased on her neck. The other two eyewitnesses, P.W.-1, Dhomro Oraon and P.W.-2 Wilson Toppo have also fully supported the prosecution case, though P.W.-1 Dhomro Oraon has, later on, stated in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased. However, this is not going to make any dent in the prosecution case, as all the other witnesses are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and have fully supported the prosecution case. The ocular evidences of the eyewitness are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. Krishna Kumar Sharma and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-2. However, this is not going to make any dent in the prosecution case, as all the other witnesses are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and have fully supported the prosecution case. The ocular evidences of the eyewitness are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. Krishna Kumar Sharma and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-2. The evidence of P.W.-7 Kapildeo Prasad Keshri, the I.O. of the case, shows that the he had found the dead body of the deceased on the vacant land between the houses of the accused and the informant and he also recovered the weapons of offence near the place of occurrence, which were also produced in the Court and marked as material exhibits. Though, the weapons of offence were not blood stained, nor any blood was found at the place of occurrence, but there is sufficient explanation for the same, as even in the F.I.R., as also in the evidence of the I.O., it has come that on the date of occurrence, there was heavy rain, due to which, blood was washed away. 13. In the facts of the case, we find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused-appellant, beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 2nd of July, 2008 and Order of sentence dated 7th of July, 2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellant Bhakhlu Oraon @ Habil Lakra, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant is already in custody and serving out the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 14. There is no merit in this appeal and the same, is accordingly, dismissed. Let the L.C.R. be sent beck forthwith along with a copy of this Judgment.