GANDRU ORAON vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Heard learned amicus curie appointed by the Court for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State.   Â

The sole appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2007 and Order of sentence dated 29.03.2007, passed by the learned

Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VII, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 491 of 2004, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty and

convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he had committed the murder of his own wife. Upon

hearing on the point sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10, 000/- for the said

offence.  Â

The prosecution case was instituted on basis of the fardbeyan of Birsa Oraon, the son of the accused Gandru Oraon and the deceased Dasmi

Orain, recorded at his village Murto, P.S. Chanho, District Ranchi, on 16.4.2004, wherein he has stated that on the same day in the morning at about

5:30 A.M, he suddenly woke up hearing the screams of his mother Dasmi Orain, whereupon he rushed to her room and found his father Gandru

Oraon armed with knife, by which he had already assaulted the mother of the informant, causing bleeding injury on her neck. Upon seeing the

informant, the accused made another assault upon her, below the neck on the shoulder, whereupon his mother fell down. The informant tried to

apprehend his father, but he fled away. The informant was trying to take his mother to the hospital, but she died at the spot. Thereafter the police was

informed. Claiming, that his father had intentionally committed the murder of his mother, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of

which Chanho P.S. Case No. 25 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 1073 of 2004, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, against the accused Gandru Oraon, and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

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, eight witnesses have been

examined in the case, including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the

deceased.

P.W.-6 Birsa Oraon is the informant and the son of the accused as well as the deceased. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place on

16.4.2004 at about 5:00 A.M in the morning. He was sleeping in his room and he heard the screams of his mother, whereupon, he rushed to her room

and saw that his mother was already given a stab wound. When this witness reached there, another assault was given to his mother whereupon she

fell down and while he was trying to lift his mother, his father Gandru Oraon who is the accused in the case, started fleeing away. He chased his

father, but he fled away with the knife. He returned back and tried to lift his mother, but his mother died. Thereafter, he sent the information to the

police and the police came to the place of occurrence and recorded his fardbeyan, which was read over to him and he put his signature on the same,

which he has identified, and the same was marked Exhibit-2. He has stated that his mother died due to assault by knife. In his cross-examination, this

witness has stated they were living in separate rooms and when he reached the room of his mother, he saw that his father made the second assault on

his mother, due to which, she died. He has stated that he had chased his father to some distance. He has also stated that there was quarrel between

his mother and father on the day of occurrence. There is nothing further of much importance in his cross-examination and he has denied the

suggestion that he has falsely implicated his father.

P.W.-5 Biran Orain is the wife of the informant. She has also supported the prosecution case as the eyewitness to the occurrence, stating that the

occurrence had taken place about one and half years ago. She was sleeping with her husband in a separate room and upon hearing the noise, she

came out when she saw her father-in-law armed with knife. In her presence, her father-in-law assaulted her mother-in-law by knife, below the neck.

Her husband tried to apprehend her father-in-law, but her father-in-law fled away and her mother-in-law died due to the assault. She was given two

assaults by knife. The first assault was given prior to her reaching there and the second assault was given in her presence. She has identified the

accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her husband had chased her father-in-law, but the accused managed to flee away

with the knife. There is nothing of much importance in her cross-examination also.

P.W.-2 Bal Krishan Oraon is the own nephew of the deceased and theaccused and he has also supported the prosecution case as the eyewitness

to the occurrence. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place at about 5:30 A.M in the morning and upon hearing the sound of

screams, he rushed to the house of Birsa Oraon, where he saw Gandru Oraon armed with knife and he assaulted his wife by knife. Birsa Oraon tried

to apprehend him but he could not apprehend his father and after assaulting his wife, Gandru Oraon fled away towards the fields. They were trying to

bring his aunt to the hospital, but she died at the spot. The villagers informed the police. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had

not seen Gandru Oraon assaulting the deceased, but to the Court's question, he has again stated that he had seen the accused, assaulting the

deceased. He has stated that the accused is his own uncle and he has no enmity with him. He has denied the suggestion of giving the false evidence.

P.W.-3 Sukru Oraon and P.W.-4 Deo Chand Oraon are also the nephews of the accused and the deceased. Both these witnesses have supported

the prosecution case, stating that upon hearing the screams and noise, they rushed to the place of occurrence at about 5:00-5:30 A.M in the morning,

and they had seen the accused, Gandru Oraon, fleeing away with knife in his hand. When they entered the house, they saw their aunt in injured

condition who died. P.W.-3 Sukru Oraon has also stated that the informant tried to chase his father, but he could not apprehend his father. He is also

the witness to the inquest report of the dead body and he has identified his signature on the inquest report, and the inquest report was marked Exhibit-

Both these witnesses were put to cross-examination and there is nothing of much importance in therein. P.W.-4 Deo Chand Oraon has stated in

his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased, but he had seen him while he was fleeing away.

P.W.-1 Misri Oraon is only a hearsay witness, and he has stated that he was informed that Gandru Oraon had assaulted his wife to death by knife.

He went to the place of occurrence, and had seen the dead body of the deceased. He is also the witness to the inquest report, upon which he has

proved his signature.

P.W.-7 Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 16.4.2004, and had found the

following injuries on the dead body :-

Injury No.1

 Abrasion: -               3 cm x ½ cm on back of left elbow.

Stab Wound: - 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right lateral neck near right    shoulder. The weapon had passed through soft tissues, blood vessels

and cut the 5th cervical vertebra partially.

Incised Wound: - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left lateral neck cutting the soft tissues blood vessels and 3rd cervical vertebra

partially.

There was infiltration of blood and blood clot at the site of injuries. This witness has stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The

abrasion was caused by hard and blunt substance and rest of the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. He has also stated that the death was

due to the aforesaid injuries. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, and the same was marked as Exhibit-3. He has

also stated that the weapon used may be dagger.

P.W.-8 Md. Nehaluddin is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 16.4.2004, he was posted as Officer-Incharge at Chanho Police

Station. He got the information that some occurrence had taken place at village Murto, whereupon he proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he

recorded the fardbeyan of Birsa Oraon. He has identified the fardbeyan to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Exhibit-2/A. He has

also proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit-2/B. He took over the charge of investigation and recorded the re-

statement of the informant. He prepared the inquest report which also he has proved, which was earlier marked Exhibit-1. He inspected the place of

occurrence and he has given the details thereof. He had found the dead body on a mat in the room, with bleeding injuries. He sent the dead body for

the post-mortem examination and recorded the statements of the other witnesses and thereafter, he arrested the accused on 21.4.2004. He got the

post-mortem report and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-

examination, this witness has stated that he had mentioned about the injuries in the inquest report and he had also mentioned that there were bleeding

injuries. He found the blood on the mat, but he had not found any blood on the floor. He has also stated that he had not recovered the knife in course

of investigation, nor he had seized the bloodstained mat. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of theCr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No defence

witness was examined in the case.

Learned amicus curie, arguing 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, inasmuch as, not a single independent witness has been examined in the case. All the witnesses

examined are the relatives of the accused and the deceased, and they are interested witnesses. Learned amicus curie submitted that in any view of

the matter, the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that all the witnesses have fully supported the

prosecution case. The informant is the son of the accused and the deceased both, and he is equally related to both of them and as such, there is no

occasion of his showing any favour either to the accused or to the deceased. The informant P.W.-6 Birsa Oraon and his wife P.W.-5 Biren Orain,

have fully supported the prosecution case as eye witnesses to the occurrence, stating that when they rushed to the room of the deceased upon hearing

the screams, they saw that first assault had already been made, and in their presence, the second assault was also made by the accused. Both these

witnesses have also stated that the informant had chased his father, but his father managed to flee away with the knife. Similar are the statements of

the other witnesses, namely, P.W.-2 Bal Krishan Oraon, P.W.-3 Sukru Oraon and P.W.-4 Deo Chand Oraon. Even if it is taken that P.W.2, Bal

Krishan Oraon is not the eyewitness to the occurrence, but all these three witnesses who are the nephews of the deceased as well as the accused,

had seen the accused, fleeing away from the place of occurrence. They all had seen the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries. The ocular

evidence of these witnesses is fully supported by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu, who had found two stab and incised wounds

on the neck of the deceased which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to 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.

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W-6

Birsa Oraon, the informant and P.W.-5 Biren Orain, who are the son and the daughter-in-law of the accused as well as the deceased. Both of them

have stated that they rushed to the room of their mother upon hearing the screams in the early morning hours and when they reached there, they saw

the mother already having one bleeding injury on her neck and in their presence, the accused had again assaulted his wife, giving the second injury

below the neck on the shoulder, which proved fatal to the deceased. Both these injuries were found by P.W.-7 Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu, on the deceased,

which is apparent from his evidence and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-3. Though P.W.-2 Bal Krishan Oraon has also supported

the prosecution case as eyewitness to the occurrence, but his being the eyewitness to the occurrence, is doubtful due to his admission in his cross-

examination that he had not seen the accused assaulting his wife, but this witness along-with P.W.-3 Sukru Oraon and P.W.-4 Deo Chand Oraon are

certainly the witnesses to the fact that upon hearing the screams, they rushed to the place of occurrence and saw their aunt with bleeding injuries, who

died shortly. They had also seen the accused with knife fleeing from the place of occurrence. The injuries on the deceased found by P.W.-7 Dr. Ram

Sevak Sahu, clearly show that the blood vessels in the neck were cut and even the 3rd and 5th cervical vertebra were also cut partially. These injuries

were certainly sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The occurrence having taken place at about 5.00 to 5.30 A.M., inside the

house in the early morning, the son and the daughter-in-law living in the same house, and the nephews living in nearby houses, are only the natural

witnesses, whose depositions cannot be brushed aside on the only ground that they are related and interested witnesses. Indeed all these witnesses are

equally related to the accused as well as the deceased both, and there is no occasion of them being prejudiced. Even otherwise, their evidence inspire

confidence, and there is nothing in their cross-examinations to discredit their testimony. P.W.-1 Misri Oraon is an independent witness, who has

supported the case as hearsay witness and he had seen the dead body at the place of occurrence. 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 accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and there

is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2007 and Order of sentence dated

29.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.-VII, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 491 of 2004, convicting and

sentencing the appellant Gandru 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.

Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance by Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, the learned amicus

curie. We direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus

curie. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, for the needful.

We find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned

forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.   Â