AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J
The instant criminal appeal was originally preferred by six appellants, out of them, appellant Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 died during the pendency of this appeal and their appeals stand abated vide order dated 19.08.2025.
This appeal is heard on behalf of appellant No. 2 namely Bandhana Oraon and appellant No. 3 namely Kishun Oraon.
The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 10.10.2002 and 11.10.2002 respectively passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in S.T.No. 188 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
We have already heard the arguments of Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vinit Kumar. Vashistha, learned Spl.PP for the State.
Factual Matrix:-
The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.02.2001, the younger brother namely Ramji Oraon of Informant (P.W.-7) had gone to Kashir Bazar. In the evening, at about 7:00 PM, the informant heard Halla of Bachao-Bachao coming towards roadside. Upon this, informant(P.W.7) Sitaram Uraon along with his wife namely Kamli Devi (P.W.6) went to road and saw that the accused persons namely Handu Oraon armed with Lathi, Bandhana Oraon, Santosh Uraon and Jay Mangal Oraon armed with Tangi and Kishun Oraon and Budhram Oraon armed with Danda and Rupan Oraon armed with Baluwa were indiscriminately assaulting to the brother of the informant with the respective weapons. The informant and his wife tried to save him but the accused persons threatened them to kill. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away saying that they have killed Ramji Oraon and if any case before the Police is lodged, they will also kill the informant. It is alleged that informant brought his brother Ramji Oraon to his home but he died. The motive behind the occurrence is previous enmity between the parties.
On the basis of above information, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 6/2001 FIR was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences against the above appellants.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment was passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
P.W.-1 Shekhar Oraon (Elder brother of the informant) P.W.-2 Sita Devi
P.W.-3 Jagmani Devi (Widow of deceased) P.W.-4 Mangru Oraon (Father of deceased) P.W.-5 Guddu Oraon
P.W.-6 Kamli Devi (wife of the informant) P.W.-7 Sitaram Oraon (Informant)
P.W.-8 Dr. A.D.N. Prasad
P.W.-9 Ramanand Prasad (Investigating Officer)
Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution: -
Ext.1- Signature of Shekhar Oraon in Seizure List Ext.1/1-Signature of Mangra Oraon in Seizure List Ext. ½ & 1/3 -Signature of Shekhar Oraon and Mangra Oraon in Inquest Report
Ext. ¼- and 1/5 – Signatrue of Sita Ram Oraon and Shekhar Oraon in F.I.R.
Ext.2- Post-Mortem Report
Ext.3- Fardbeyand
Ext.4-Formal FIR
Ext.5-Inquest Report
Ext.6- Seizure List.
Ext.7-Case Diary
However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence and the case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication due to previous enmity
Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that out of nine witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution,
P.W.-1 Shekhar Oraon (brother of the deceased), P.W.-2 Sita Devi, P.W.-3 Jagmani Devi(wife of deceased), P.W.-4 Mangru Oraon (Father of the deceased), P.W.-6 Kamli Devi (wife of the informant) and P.W.-7 Sira Ram Oraon (Informant), all are the family members of the deceased and claimed to be eye witnesses but their testimony goes to show that all are hearsay witnesses and none have seen the occurrence. P.W.-8 is the Doctor who has conducted autopsy on the deceased and P.W.-9 Ramanand Prasad is the Investigating Officer. There is no dispute that the deceased was murdered by assaulting him but the involvement and participation of the appellants has not been proved conclusively by the prosecution through cogent and reliable evidence. No incriminating article has been recovered from the appellants connecting them with the alleged offence of murder. The learned trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and committed serious error of law in convicting the appellants and the impugned judgment and order is not really sustainable in the eye of law and fit to be set aside and the appellants deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
Submissions on behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly appreciated and analyzed the evidence available on record and rightly convicted the appellants. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants does not suffer from illegality or infirmity, calling for any interference. There is no legal substance in the grounds raised on behalf of the appellants that there was no any previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased. Hence, this appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
We have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions of the parties and perused the same.
The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffer from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?”
Analysis, reasons and decision:
Before imparting our verdict on the above point, it appears appropriate to discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case.
P.W.-1 Shekhar Oraon has deposed that his brother Ramji Oraon has been murdered, while returning from Kashir Bazar. He came to know about the occurrence from his elder brother, namely, Sitaram Oraon (Informant) that Ramji Oraon is being assaulted by the accused persons, namely, Handu Oraon, Bandhana Oraon, Kishun Oraon, Jaymangal Oraon, Santosh Oraon, Budhiram Oraon and Rupan Oraon by Tangi, Baluwa and Lathi. He saw the dead body of his brother. The police have seized from the place of occurrence blood-stained soil and trouser of deceased and seizure list was prepared over which he also signed along with his father and proved his signature as Exhibit-1/1. He has also signed over the inquest report prepared by the police and proved his signature as Exhibit ½ and signature of his father as Exhibit 1/3. Admittedly, this witness is a hearsay witness, having no personal knowledge of occurrence.
P.W.-2, Sita Devi has also deposed that at the time of occurrence, on 9.2.2001, at about 7:30PM, she was on her home. Informant came and told that Ramji Oraon has been killed. He also disclosed that Bandhana Oraon, Jaymangal Oraon, and Santosh Uraon have assaulted by Tangi and Rupan Oraon by Balua due to which Ramji Oraon died. She has only seen the dead body of the deceased sustaining grievous injury on head, ear and hand. Therefore, this witness is also a hearsay witness of occurrence, having no personal knowledge.
P.W.-3, Jagmani Devi is the wife of the deceased. She has also come to know about the occurrence from her Bhaisur, namely, Sita Ram Oraon (informant). She has seen the dead body of her husband. She has expressed no enmity with the accused persons.
P.W.-4, Mangru Oraon has also come to know about the occurrence from Sita Ram Oraon and went to place of occurrence and saw Ramji Oraon in seriously injured conditions. This witness is also a hearsay witness.
P.W.-5, Guddu Oraon is also a hearsay witness from Sita Ram Oraon. He also went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. There is nothing else in his evidence.
P.W.-6, Kamli Devi is the wife of the informant, who has deposed that on the date of occurrence, in the evening, Ramiji Oraon was returning from Kashir Bazar and was murdered near Habicus Plant situated nearby her house. She heard Halla of Ramji Oraon, then along with her husband came out of her house and saw that the accused persons were assaulting to Ramji Oraon by Lathi, Tangi and Baluwa, due to which, he died. She has admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of occurrence, she and her husband did not raise any alarm, rather, went inside their house due to fear and shut the door from inside and saw the occurrence peeping from the hole of the door. All over the night, she along with her husband stayed in their home. Shekhar Oraon, Mangru Oraon, Sita Devi and Guddu Oraon came on next day of occurrence.
P.W.-7, Sita Ram Oraon is the informant and has deposed that on 09.02.2001, at about 7:30PM, he heard Halla of his brother, namely, Ramji Oraon Bachao Bachao then he along with his wife went towards the place of occurrence and saw that the accused persons Budhiram Oraon, Handu Oraon, Kishun Oroan, Bandhana Oraon, Jaymangal Oroan, Santosh Oraon and Rupan Oraon armed with Tangi, Blauwa and Lathi were assaulting his brother. He attempted to rescue his brother but he was threatened to be killed then they entered into their house due to fear. His wife went inside the house and this witness went to the house of his brother Shekhar Oraon and father Mangru Oraon and returned to place of occurrence, till then, his brother had died. In the next day, police came to his house and his fardbeyan was recorded, over which, he has proved his signature as Exhibit ¼ and brother Shekhar Oraon as Exhibit 1/5.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that on the date of occurrence, he had also gone to Kashir Bazar but he returned at 5:00PM. He met with the widow (P.W.3) of the deceased at about 8:00PM, in the night. He, however, admits that after the occurrence, he along with his brother Shekhar Oraon went to Kashir Market for calling a Doctor and reached there at about 9-9:30 PM and brought Doctor S.K. Gupta, at that time, none of the villagers were present. He also admits that from Kashir Market, Chainpur Police Station is about three and half kilometers but they did not go to the Police Station, rather, in the morning, at about 4:00 AM, he went to Chainpur Police Station and reached their at 5:00AM and his statement was recorded by the police. Thereafter, police came at the place of occurrence, at that time also, no villagers came on the spot. He also admits that he has no litigating terms with any of the villagers. He also admits that till third day of the occurrence, he did not talk with any of the villagers about the occurrence. He has denied the suggestions of the defence that some unknown persons have killed his brother, while he was returning from market and he has falsely implicated the accused persons in this case.
P.W.-8, Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, posted as CAS at Sadar Hospital, Gumla who conducted post-mortem examination and found following injuries present on person:
(i) Fracture of the skull over the right parietal region as well as occipital region was present with large amount of clotted blood inside the cranium.
(ii) Multiple ribs fracture on right side of chest only. Both injuries were ante-mortem in nature and injury No. (i) was sufficient to cause death due to head injury. P.W.-9, Ramnandan Prasad is the I.O. of this case. According to his evidence, on 09.02.2001, informant Sitaram Oraon along with his brother Shekhar Oraon came at Police Station and informed about murder of his brother Ramji Oraon. He recorded his fardbeyan (Exhibit-3). Accordingly, formal FIR (Exhibit-4) was registered. He also recorded the statement of informant’s brother Shekhar Oraon and went to place of occurrence, which is situated in village Kurbail. In between the house of Sitaram Oraon and accused Handu Oraon there is a Bari near the road and on both side of road, there is bushes of Putus. He found profuse blood at the place of occurrence towards south of the place of the occurrence. There is house of accused Handu Oraon and Bandhana Oraon and others and towards north-east, there is a house of accused Budhiram and He prepared the inquest report of deceased (Exhibit-5) and also prepared the seizure list (Exhibit-6) of the blood-stained soil. He sent the dead body for post-mortem at Sadar Hospital, Gumla. He also arrested the accused Santosh Uraon and other accused persons surrendered before the Court. After finding sufficient evidence submitted chargesheet against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC.
In his cross-examination, he admits that blood-stained soil was sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination but no correspondence was conducted for obtaining the report. He has got no evidence regarding any previous dispute between the deceased and accused persons. He also admits that Sita Devi has not stated like an eye witness of the occurrence about any specific overt act of any accused persons. He has denied the suggestion of defence that the informant and his brother had not gone to police station in the night rather they approached the police station on the next day morning and also have not disclosed name of any accused persons as an eye witness of the occurrence, he has submitted charge-sheet only on the basis of afterthought given by the witnesses particularly the informant and his investigation are perfunctory and is only a table work. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that his investigation is defective.
Form the aforesaid evidence, it appears that all the witnesses of this case are closely related with the deceased and are the family members including the informant. No enmity has been proved between the deceased and the accused persons by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It also appears that except P.W.-7, Informant, Sitaram Uraon and his wife Kamli Devi (P.W.6), all other witnesses are hearsay witnesses regarding the occurrence and involvement of the appellants in the alleged offence. It appears that in his fardbeyan (Exhibit-3), the informant Sitaram Uraon has clearly disclosed that on hearing Halla of his brother, at about 7:00PM, he along with his wife came out and proceeded towards road, then saw that all the seven accused persons were indiscriminately assaulting through their respective weapons like Lathi, Tangi and Baluwa. When, he attempted to rescue his brother, then they were also threatened to be killed. According to informant (P.W.-7), he went to the house of his brother Shekhar Oraon and along with him, he went to Police Station in the night itself and also brought Doctor but the said testimony has not been corroborated by his own wife Kamli Devi, who has deposed that due to fear, she along with her husband remained in her house. She along with her husband were peeping from the hole of the door and seen the occurrence. She has also disclosed that in the next morning, her husband along with his brother Shekhar Oraon went to the Police Station. There is also no doubt that the occurrence took place on the road which is situated in between the house of informant and accused persons. Therefore, there appears material contradictions as regards the manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and involvement of the appellants in assaulting the deceased at the particular time of occurrence. The conjoint reading of evidence of P.W.-7, Informant, Sitaram Uraon and his wife, Kamli Devi (P.W.6) goes to show that both of them were in their house throughout the night and did not disclose the occurrence to any of the villagers and they have also not been able to prove any enmity with the appellants. No corroborative evidence like blood-stained soil and trouser of the deceased seized in the case has been proved and there is no F.S.L. report regarding presence of blood of the deceased. The post-mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit-2) does not correspond with the manner of occurrence as alleged by the informant (P.W.7) and his wife (P.W.-6) namely Sitaram Uraon and Kamli Devi, respectively who claimed to be eye witnesses. According to these witnesses, there was indiscriminate assault to the deceased caused by Baluwa, Lathi and Tangi i.e. sharp cutting weapon. The injuries sustained by the deceased shows that his skull was fractured and ribs was also fractured and above injuries were caused by hard blunt object. Therefore, the claim of P.W.-7 and P.W.6 about indiscriminate assault by Baluwa and Tangi becomes falsified.
We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case and close scrutiny of eye witnesses in the light of their cross-examination demolishes the very prosecution story as regards genesis, manner and place of occurrence. No motive behind the occurrence has also been brought on record as claimed in the F.I.R. itself. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the learned trial Court has committed serious error of law while evaluating evidence of the witnesses in isolated manner without considering the materials elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. The whole approach of the learned Trial Court in such a grievous charge against the appellants appears to be very reluctant and casual.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in S.T. No. 188/2001 against the appellants is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
In result, the appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.
Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.