Budhram Oraon vs The State of Jharkhand

The appellant was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of Maniyaro Orain and also for disposing of her dead-body to screen himself from legal punishment. He was also charged under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft Act.

The Court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Maniyaro Orain and disposing of her dead-body, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 22.07.2004 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide its order dated 23.07.2004. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution, as has been, projected in the ''fardbeyan'' (Ext. 5) is that on 25.03.2003 while the informant, Ram Sai Oraon (P.W. 9) and his father, John Oraon (P.W. 6) were there in their house along with the deceased, Maniyaro Orain, the mother of the informant, the appellant, Budhram Oraon came to his house at about 7 p.m. and asked from the informant about the whereabout of his mother. The informant told the appellant that his mother is cooking food. On getting this information, the appellant went inside the house, caught-hold of the deceased and took out her by pulling her hair and brought her at Aakhara, situated outside of the house where the appellant gave tangi blows over her neck. In the meantime, when the informant, Ram Sai Oraon (P.W. 9) and his father, John Oraon (P.W. 6) came to rescue the deceased, the appellant made an attempt to assault them, on account of which, both of them P.Ws. 6 and 9 returned home out of fear and closed the door. The appellant also came there and tried to open the door, but did not succeed. After half an hour, when the informant and his father came to ''Akhara'', they did find only blood being spilled over the ground. However, the dead-body was not there. In the next morning (26.03.2003), when the villagers assembled, the informant and the villagers by tracing the dragging mark, came near an orchard and found blood being spilled near a well. They suspected the dead-body being thrown in the well. With some object like that of stick, they could detect that the dead-body is there in the well.

Upon it, when information was given to Dumri Police Station, the Officer-in-Charge entered such information in the Station Diary and entrusted one Ram Babu Rai (P.W. 10) for enquiry. When he came to village, he recorded the ''fardbeyan'' (Ext. 5) of the informant who narrated about the incidents, as has been, stated above. On the basis of it, a First Information Report (Ext. 6) was drawn. He himself took up the investigation, during which, he held inquest on the dead-body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext. 7). He sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Saroj Kumar (P.W. 11) who upon holding the autopsy did find the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-

Incised Wounds:- (1) Decapitating the head at the level of 5th Cervical Vertebra cutting the soft tissues, blood vessels and spinal cord completely. On inspection of the wound, three skin tags were found projecting from the margin of the wound indicating minimum four blows. (2) 4" X 1" X Soft Tissue over front of neck lower part. (3) 2" X 1" X Soft Tissue on the left side of neck lower part. (4) 3" X 1" X Soft Tissue on left side of neck 1" inch below of preceding injury.

Internal:- Sternum and 3rd to 10th ribs on both sides were found fractured.

The Doctor issued post-mortem examination report (Ext. 10) with an opinion that the death was caused due to decapitation caused by heavy sharp-cutting weapon and also on account of internal injuries.

Meanwhile, the I.O. did seize earth smeared with blood from ''Akhara'' (where the deceased is said to have been assaulted by the appellant) and also from near the well under seizure-lists (Ext. 8 and Ext. 9). At the same time, the I.O. also found the trail of dragging mark. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, when the charge-sheet was submitted, the Court took cognizance of the offences against the appellant. When the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial, during which, ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, in order to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.

Of them P.W. 1-Badrinath Kherwar, P.W. 2-Keshwar Kherwar, P.W. 3-Bade Oraon and P.W. 7-Baliram Oraon are the hearsay witnesses who came to know about the occurrence either from the informant (P.W. 9) or from the villagers. According to P.Ws. 2 and 3, the Police seized earth smeared with blood from ''Akhara'' in their presence.

P.W. 4-Kaleshwar Kashi and P.W. 5-Jageshwar Tirkey are the witnesses to the inquest whereas P.W. 8-Sobha Oraon, a Chawkidar of the Village is the person in whose presence blood was also seized. P.W. 9-Ramsai Oraon (informant) and P.W. 6-Johar Oraon (the father of the informant) are the eye-witnesses who have testified almost in the same manner as has been stated by the informant in his ''fardbeyan''.

On closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned over the incriminating evidences appearing against him under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he simply denied it.

Thereupon the Trial Court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 6 and 9 getting corroboration from the medical evidence and also from the objecting finding of the I.O. (P.W. 10) recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is under-challenge.

Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has come forward to prove its case through two eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 6 and P.W. 9, but their testimonies are not consistent with each other and thereby, the trial court by putting reliance on their testimonies which are inconsistent to each other, committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence and hence, it is fit to be set aside.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there has been absolutely no inconsistency so far material points are there in between the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 who were present in the house at the time of occurrence and had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with tangi and that their testimonies gets corroboration not only from the medical evidence, but also from the objective finding of the I.O. and thereby, the trial court is absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence which never warrants to be interfered with.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we are in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. It is the case of the prosecution, as has been, testified by the informant (P.W. 9) and also by his father, Johar Oraon (P.W. 6) that while they were in the house at the time of occurrence, the appellant came and asked from the informant about the whereabout of his mother, Maniyaro Orain (deceased), the informant very innocently told the appellant that his mother is cooking food. On getting this information, the appellant came inside of the house, caught-hold of the mother of the informant and brought her out of the house near ''Akhara'' by pulling her hair. There the deceased, as per the testimonies, of P.W. 9, were given four tangi blows over her neck. On seeing this, when the P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 came there to rescue the deceased, the appellant ran to assault them, upon which they ran away and came inside the house and closed the door. After half an hour when P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 came near the ''Akhara'', they only did find blood being spilled over there, but the dead-body was not there. By that time, it had become quite dark and, therefore, they left searching the dead-body. In the morning when the villagers assembled, the informant along with the villagers could locate the dead-body by trail of dragging mark. They came near the well where they did find blood being spilled over the earth and then they could locate the dead-body inside the well. Having located the dead-body, the matter was informed to the Police, upon which, the I.O. (P.W. 10) came to the place of occurrence, and seized the earth smeared with blood from ''Akhara'' and also from the place near the well. Having scrutinized the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, we do not find any inconsistency in between their testimonies on the material point though on some points they are at variance, but that never affects the case of the prosecution adversely. On the other hand, we do find that the testimonies of the eye-witnesses gets corroboration from the medical evidence as the Doctor has opined that for decapitating the neck, minimum four blows would have been given which corroborates the testimonies of the eye-witnesses who had clearly testified that four blows had been given by the appellant on the neck of the deceased. That apart, the testimonies of the eye-witnesses get corroboration from the objecting finding of the I.O. who did find blood being spilled at ''Akhara'' and also near well and that apart trail of dragging mark was also noticed by him.

Thus, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby, the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence, which is hereby affirmed.

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.