Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 434 (JHR)

Mangal @ Mangra Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-20

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 18th of January, 2008 and Order of sentence dated 24th of January, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2006, whereby, the sole 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 life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Joshila Kindo, who is wife of the deceased Lathru Oraon, recorded on 20.10.2005, at about 11.30 PM in the night, at village-Palsa, P.S. Karra, District Khunti. She has stated that in the same night at about 8.00 PM, her husband Lathru Oraon, mother-in-law Bhukhli Oraon, her sister Amita Minz and she had come out of the house after taking their meals, for urinating, before going to bed, and they had a lantern with them. Her husband was urinating near the wall of the house, when suddenly, Mangra Oraon @ Mangal, who is the husband of Amita Minz, came armed with sword, along with one unknown person, and he assaulted her husband by sword, causing injuries on the left arm of her husband. Her husband, thereafter, snatched the sword from the accused. She has further stated that there was some matrimonial dispute between the accused Mangra Oraon @ Mangal and her sister Amita Minz, due to which, he had left her sister, and the accused had also threatened her sister. For the last 15 days, her sister was staying with her due to which, Mangal @ Mangra Oraon had visited her place and assaulted her husband. She has stated that her husband died at the spot. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Karra P.S. Case No. 67 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 589 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused Mangra Oraon @ Mangal, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Karra P.S. Case No. 67 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 589 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused Mangra Oraon @ Mangal, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 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, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 5. P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo is the informant of the case and wife of the deceased. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 20.10.2005, at about 8.00 P.M., in the night, when she along with her mother-in-law, her husband had come out for urinating, after taking meal, and her husband was urinating near the wall of the house. In the meantime, Mangra came there armed with sword, and assaulted her husband, causing injuries on his left arm. He again made second assault by sword, but her husband caught the sword and snatched the same from him. Her husband started shouting that Mangra had assaulted him and after some time, her husband died, due to bleeding. Mangra fled away from the place of occurrence. She has stated that the police was informed and the police visited the place of occurrence and recorded her statement, upon which, she had put her signature. She has identified her signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit-1. She has stated that on the next day, she had handed over the sword to the police and the police had seized the said sword. She has proved her signature on the seizure list, which was marked Exhibit-2. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had gone to the Police Station at about 7.00 A.M. in the morning for handing over the sword and she has denied the suggestion that she had not handed over the sword at the Police Station. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had gone to the Police Station at about 7.00 A.M. in the morning for handing over the sword and she has denied the suggestion that she had not handed over the sword at the Police Station. She has also stated that the police had visited the place of occurrence at about 8.30 in the night on the date of occurrence, and at that time she had not shown the sword to the police as one Etwa Kundu had gone to search the assailant with the said sword. She has stated that she could not identify the other person, who was accompanying the accused. She has also denied the suggestion not to have given the statement before the police that when her husband was urinating, accused came and assaulted him by sword, causing injury on his arm and that her husband had snatched the sword, when the second assault was made, due to which also, his hand was cut. She has also denied the suggestion not to have given the statement before the police that her husband had shouted that Mangra had assaulted him by sword. She has denied the suggestion of lodging the false case. 6. P.W.-1 Amita Minz is sister of the informant and wife of the accused Mangal @ Mangra Oraon. This witness is the eyewitness to the occurrence, and has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 20.10.2005 at about 8.00 P.M. in the night. She had visited the house of her brother-in-law and her sister. At the time of occurrence she along with her sister and mother-in-law of her sister had come out for urinating and in the meantime the accused Mangra Oraon, came armed with sword and assaulted her brother-in-law, Lathru Oraon, causing his death. She had seen the injury on the left arm of her brother-in-law. She has stated that the accused tried to make another assault also, but her brother-in-law snatched the sword from the accused and, thereafter, he died. She has identified the accused in the Court. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination, in which, she has stated that she had visited her sister’s place 8-10 days prior to the occurrence, and on the date of occurrence, she was at her sister’s place. She has identified the accused in the Court. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination, in which, she has stated that she had visited her sister’s place 8-10 days prior to the occurrence, and on the date of occurrence, she was at her sister’s place. She was also cross-examined on the point of her marriage with the accused and the matrimonial dispute between them, but there is nothing of much importance in the same, except that she has admitted that the accused had left her and had driven her out from his house. She has also stated that she had given the statement before the police that when the second assault was made by the accused, her brother-in-law had snatched the sword from the accused and he had also uttered that accused had assaulted him. She has denied the suggestion of giving the false evidence. 7. P.W.-2 is Bhukhli Oraon, who is mother of the deceased. She has also supported the prosecution case as an eyewitness in the same manner, as stated by the aforesaid two eyewitnesses, stating that when her son was urinating, accused had assaulted him by sword, causing injuries on his shoulder and when second assault was made by the accused, her son snatched the sword, due to which also, his hand was injured. She has stated that her son had died at the spot. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that there was only one room in her house and her son and her daughter-in-law used to sleep in the room and she used to sleep outside the room. She has further stated that on the date of occurrence, only three persons were there in the house. She has stated in her cross-examination that she had given the statement before the police that when her son came out for urinating, the accused Mangra came and assaulted him by sword. She has also denied the suggestion not to have given the statement before the police that when the accused tried to make the second assault, her son caught the sword, due to which, his hand was injured. She has also stated that the accused had come alone to the place of occurrence and no one was accompanying him. She has denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence. 8. She has also stated that the accused had come alone to the place of occurrence and no one was accompanying him. She has denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence. 8. P.W.-4 Daniel Oraon is the witness to the inquest report and the seizure list and he has identified his signatures on these documents, which were marked Exhibits-3 and 3/1. Similarly P.W.-5 Sarua Oraon is the witness to the inquest report, on which, he has identified his signature and the same was marked Exhibit-3/2. These witnesses have stated nothing about the occurrence. 9. P.W.-6 Sita Ram Kindo, P.W.-7 Premchand Kindo and P.W.-8 Bal Krishan Mahto, are the hearsay witnesses, who had reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence, upon hearing the noise. They had seen the dead body and they were informed that the accused had assaulted the deceased. They have stated that they had not seen the occurrence. 10. P.W.-10 is Dr. Anil Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 21st of October, 2005, and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- (i) Sharp cut injury on left side auxiliary area, having 2” in length x 2” in width and deep to thoracic cage. (ii) After opening the scalp valt, congestion of membrane inside the cranium was detected. Congestion of brain matter was also found. After opening of the thoracic cage, it was found left side damaged having blood clot on the left lung and rt. lung was found congested. Both the chambers of heart were empty. Stomach full with rice and pulses. Small intestine and large intestine filled up with gaseous molecules. Liver, spleen, kidney were congested. Urinary bladder-empty. This witness has stated that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to shock and haemorrhage and the injury on the vital organ. He has also stated that the injury on the dead body was ante-mortem in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon, may be, sword. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-8. 11. P.W.-9 is Ashok Kumar, who is the I.O of the case. He has also stated that the injury on the dead body was ante-mortem in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon, may be, sword. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-8. 11. P.W.-9 is Ashok Kumar, who is the I.O of the case. This witness has stated that on 20.10.2005, he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Karra Police Station and he was informed that there was some occurrence of quarrel at Palsa village, upon which he went to the place of occurrence along with the police party and he visited the house of Lathru Oraon, where he found his dead body. As it was night, he put the dead body under the supervision of the chowkidar and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Joshila Kindo. He has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit-4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Exhibit-5. He has stated that on the next day morning, he prepared the inquest report of the dead body, and he has proved the inquest report, which was marked Exhibit-6. He has given the details of the place of occurrence, stating that he found the blood stains at the place of occurrence, but he did not seize the blood stained soil. He has stated that the blood stained sword was produced before him by the informant, which he had seized and prepared the seizure list. He has proved the seizure list which was marked Exhibit-7. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses, and he also arrested the accused Mangal Oraon @ Mangra Oraon. Thereafter, due to his transfer, he handed over the charge of investigation. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the sword was produced before him by the informant from her house. He has also stated that he had arrested the accused from the Village-Pali, which is under the Ratu Police Station, and for that, he had taken the help of the Police Officer of said Police Station, whose name, he did not remember. His attention was drawn towards the statements of the eyewitnesses made before him and, though, some contradictions have been taken, but they are not of much importance, so far as the statements of P.W.-1 Amita Minz and P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo, the informant, are concerned. His attention was drawn towards the statements of the eyewitnesses made before him and, though, some contradictions have been taken, but they are not of much importance, so far as the statements of P.W.-1 Amita Minz and P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo, the informant, are concerned. This witness has stated that P.W.-2 Bhukhali Oraon had not stated before him that when her son was urinating, the accused came and assaulted him by sword, causing injuries. Thus, it appears that this witness may not be an eyewitness to the occurrence of murder. The fact however remains that she is undoubtedly an inmate of the house, being the mother of the deceased, and was present in the house on the date of occurrence. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is not of much contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-1 Amita Minz and P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo, who were definitely the eyewitness to the occurrence. 12. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has been found guilty and convicted for the offence as aforesaid. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the witnesses have stated that the accused died due to excessive bleeding. As such, if he had been given timely treatment, he could have been saved and, accordingly, the offence, if any, shall fall within the ambit of Section-304 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has also submitted that the case is supported only by the family members of the deceased, as also the wife of the appellant, and there is an admitted enmity between the parties, due to the fact that the accused had left his wife due to matrimonial dispute and, as such, the false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that in absence of evidence of any independent eyewitness, it shall not be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, as there are three eyewitnesses to the occurrence, who are P.W.-1 Amita Minz, the wife of the appellant, P.W.-2 Bhukhali Oraon, the mother of the deceased and P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo, the wife of the deceased, and they have fully supported the prosecution case. Even the hearsay witnesses, i.e., P.W.-6 Sita Ram Kindo, P.W.-7 Premchand Kindo and P.W.-8 Bal Krishan Mahto, who had visited the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence, were informed that the accused had committed the offence. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-10 Dr. Anil Kumar, who had found the ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased, which could be caused by sword and could cause the death. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court below. 15. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that P.W.-1 Amita Minz and P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they have fully supported the case, that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased by sword, causing injuries. Though P.W.-2 Bhukhali Oraon, the mother of the deceased has claimed to be the eyewitness to the occurrence, but the evidence of P.W.-9 Ashok Kumar, the I.O., shows that she may not be the eyewitness to the occurrence. However, the fact remains that she is an inmate of the house, and her presence at the place of occurrence cannot be ruled out. Even if her evidence is not taken into consideration, the case is fully supported by the P.W.-1 Amita Minz and P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo, in which, they have stated that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased by sword causing his death. Though. Even if her evidence is not taken into consideration, the case is fully supported by the P.W.-1 Amita Minz and P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo, in which, they have stated that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased by sword causing his death. Though. some contradictions have been taken by the defence in their statements given before the police about the second assault made on the deceased, but that is not of much importance, nor it is fatal to the prosecution, as there is no contradiction so far as the first assault is concerned, which had proved fatal. Even the hearsay witnesses, P.W.-6 Sita Ram Kindo, P.W.-7 Premchand Kindo and P.W.-8 Bal Krishan Mahto, who had reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence, upon hearing the noises, and had seen the dead body of the deceased, were informed by the informant that the accused had assaulted the deceased by sword. P.W.-1 Amita Minz, P.W.-2 Bhukhali Oraon and P.W.-3 Joshila Kindo, are the natural witnesses to the occurrence, being the inmates of the house, as the occurrence had taken place in a village in night hours, when after taking the meal, the deceased had gone for urinating, before going to bed. The absence of independent eyewitnesses at that hour of time is absolutely natural, and the non-examination of any independent eyewitnesses to the occurrence, cannot be said to be fatal in the present case. The ocular evidence of all the material witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-10 Dr. Anil Kumar, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-8, showing that the Doctor had found the sharp cut injury on the left side of auxiliary area up-to thoracic cage, and upon dissection, left lung was also found damaged. The doctor has proved the fact that the death was caused due to cardio-respiratory failure, due to shock and haemorrhage caused by above injuries. We are of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the sole accused Mangal @ Mangra Oraon, beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence. 16. We are of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the sole accused Mangal @ Mangra Oraon, beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 18th of January, 2008 and Order of sentence dated 24th of January, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2006, convicting and sentencing the appellant, Mangal @ Mangra Oraon, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant is already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 17. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.