Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 896 (JHR)

Somara Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-06-07

ANANDA SEN, PRADIP KUMAR MOHANTY

body2017
JUDGMENT Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. (C.A.V.) - Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J.- The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2007 and 29.09.2007 respectively, passed by the learned XXth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 99/2002, arising out of Hatia P.S. Case no. 170/2001, corresponding to G.R. No. 2495 of 2001, whereby and where-under, the appellant was found guilty of committing the murder of the deceased and has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life. 2. The case of the prosecution, on the basis of the fardbeyan of Lal Ashok Nath Shahdeo (P.W.12), is that on 4.9.2001 at about 5:50 hrs. he came to know that his father Lal Bhanu Pratap Nath Shahdeo (deceased) has been assaulted by a person with a sharp edged weapon at Tipudana. On the information, the informant went at the place of occurrence and saw that some persons were taking his father in a Tempo for treatment. At the place of occurrence, the informant heard that Somra Oraon gave several frasa blows upon the deceased due to which, he got injury on his forehead, cheek, left shoulder and back side of neck and blood was oozing from the injuries. He further heard that Somra Oraon fled towards Balsiring and entered in the Ancillary area. It is alleged by the informant that his father had an enmity with Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo and Dhrub Nath Shahdeo. His family had an old enmity with Somra Oraon who had also killed the brother of the informant namely, Lal Umesh Nath Shahdeo. It is further alleged that Somra Oraon is also involved in the murder of several other persons and recently he has come out of jail. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Hatia P.S. case no. 170 of 2001 was registered under Sections 302/120B IPC. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and three other accused persons under Sections 302, 109 and 120-B IPC. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2002. The charges were framed against the accused Somra under Sections 302 of the IPC and against rest accused under Sections 302/109 of the IPC to which, they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The charges were framed against the accused Somra under Sections 302 of the IPC and against rest accused under Sections 302/109 of the IPC to which, they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has altogether examined 14 witnesses and after closure of the witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for the alleged offences and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge before this Court. However, the learned trial court acquitted the remaining accused persons by holding that there is nothing on record to show that they had any meeting with Somra Oraon i.e. the present appellant to make out planning for committing murder of the deceased. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence on the ground that there are several discrepancies and material contradictions amongst the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The postmortem report is also contrary to the allegation levelled against the appellant. The seizure list witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and has also been declared hostile. No expert report regarding the blood stained earth has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation against the appellant. He also submits that the motive of the appellant to kill the deceased is absent in this case and the question put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not in accordance with law, which caused prejudice to him. The counsel for the appellant further submits that P.W.3 is absolutely unreliable witness and therefore, his evidence could not be recognized. Similarly, he submits that P.W.-4 cannot be said to be an eye witness. He also submits that from the evidence of P.W.8, it is quite clear that he had reached the place of occurrence, when the assault had already been taken place. He further submits that the evidence of P.W.-7 cannot be relied upon as he is relative of the deceased and during the cross examination, he deposed that he had seen the occurrence after hearing the hulla. Counsel for the appellant further submits that this statement also creates a great doubt about the presence of P.W.8 at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the evidence of P.W.-7 cannot be relied upon as he is relative of the deceased and during the cross examination, he deposed that he had seen the occurrence after hearing the hulla. Counsel for the appellant further submits that this statement also creates a great doubt about the presence of P.W.8 at the place of occurrence. He also submits that P.W.8, who claims to be an eye witness and was present at the place of occurrence, cannot be relied upon as P.W.-7 has not stated about his presence at the place of occurrence and thus the counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant needs to be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl.P.P. opposes the argument of the appellant and submitted that the evidences of the eye witnesses are consistent with regard to the manner of occurrence. He further submits that the incriminating article was recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant, which is the strong piece of evidence against him. He also submits that the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, also corroborated the evidence of the eye witnesses. He further submits that the witnesses have consistently told that the elder son of the deceased was also killed by the accused-appellant and in that case, he had been convicted. Thus the previous enmity between the deceased and the appellant has also been proved in this case, which is a strong ground to commit the murder of the deceased. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 8. This case hinges upon the ocular evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 as these witnesses are claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.-3 in his evidence has stated that he has seen the occurrence which has taken place in the evening at 5:45 p.m. He also stated that he has seen this appellant assaulting the deceased with farsa (a sharp cutting weapon) and thereafter, leaving the place of occurrence. He also stated that he had seen the appellant from 20-25 yards. He also stated that his eye-sight is very poor and therefore, he can see and recognize a person only upto 20 ft. He also stated that he had seen the appellant from 20-25 yards. He also stated that his eye-sight is very poor and therefore, he can see and recognize a person only upto 20 ft. and thus, the evidence of P.W.3 creates an element of doubt as to whether this witness has really seen the appellant assaulting the deceased from a distance of 20-25 yards, when as per himself, he can recognize a person only upto 20 ft. Thus, the reliability of this witness is doubtful. If this Court discards the evidence of P.W.-3, only three ocular witnesses remain in this case, who are P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8. The evidences of these three witnesses are consistent. They stated that they have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with farsa and thereafter, he fled away from the place of occurrence. P.W.7 deposed that he went to the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and saw this appellant giving frasa blows on the deceased. P.W.-8 also deposed in the same line and additionally, he stated that he saw P.W.7 at the place of occurrence. From the evidences of P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8, it is apparent that their evidences are consistent on the point of assault made by the appellant to the deceased. It has also come from the evidence of the witnesses that this appellant had also killed the elder son of the deceased and in that case, he had been convicted and remained in custody for 13 years. The appellant, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also admitted this fact. The Doctor, who conducted the post mortem, has found several injuries on the person of the deceased which are ante mortem in nature and therefore, the injuries corroborate the statements of other witnesses, who had seen the occurrence. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8. 9. From the aforementioned discussions, it is quite clear that the prosecution has able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, this Court finds that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2007 and 29.09.2007 respectively. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2007 and 29.09.2007 respectively, do not warrant any interference by this Court and, hence, it is affirmed. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.