Jhora Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, J

On the basis of a written report dated 07.03.2010 given by Sangita Tirkey to the police, Basia P.S. Case No. 07/10 has been registered against

Jhora Oraon and Chamu Oraon under section 302/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

In Sessions Trial No. 151/2010, Chamu Oraon has been acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him, extending the benefit of doubt to him.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant of this case, namely, Sangita Tirkey is wife of Lalit Oraon, the deceased. In her written report, the informant has stated that last

evening, that is, on 06.03.2010 at about 9:00 p.m., her husband had gone to bed. At that time she was in her courtyard. Her step brother-in-law

entered her house, he was carrying a hammer and he assaulted her husband with hammer on his head. On her raising hulla several persons came

there, however, by that time the accused had fled away. In her written report, the informant has alleged that her uncle-in-law, namely, Chamu Oraon

was quarrelling with her husband for construction of a house. In the past he had threatened to kill him and on the day of the occurrence also he had

called her husband and started quarrelling with him. She has raised an apprehension that Jhora Oraon has killed her husband at the instance of her

uncle-in-law. In the court, she has stated that the appellant has assaulted her husband on his head with a hammer and on her raising hulla he fled

away. She has reiterated that Chamu Oraon was quarrelling with her husband regarding the house and he was threatening to kill him. In her cross-

examination, she has stated that there is no electricity in the village and it was a dark night when the occurrence took place. She has also admitted that

there was a threat from the extremists in her village.

Dr. Zaved Anwar PW-10, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 07.03.2010 at 3:30 p.m., has found the following injuries on Lalit

Oraon:

“(1) Lacerated wound over the left side of lower portion of face size was 3†x 2â€. When he dissected the injuries there was laceration of

underlying muscles and vessels and there was fracture of left ramous and body of the mandible bone.

(2) Injury No.2 lacerated wound over the left temporal frontal region of the skull size was 6†x 4†brain deep. On dissection there was fracture of

underlying skull bone with laceration of membrancee and laceration of brain matter. Big size blood clot was present inside the brain matter. (3) Both

these injuries are on the left side of face and head. There was no food articles in the stomach. Besides these two injuries no other injuries was

found.â€​

In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem and grievous in nature and the death was caused within 12-24 hrs. of the post-mortem

examination.

The conviction of an accused can be recorded on the basis of testimony of a solitary eye-witness and there is no universal rule that the court must

insist on corroboration by other independent evidence to the testimony of a solitary witness. The test is that the evidence of a solitary witness must

inspire confidence. If it is found reliable and trustworthy by the court, conviction of an accused can be recorded on the basis of testimony of a solitary

eye-witness.

In her fardbeyan, the informant has stated that there was a dispute between her husband and Chamu Oraon for construction of a house and in her

cross-examination, in paragraph No.5, she has stated that there was no land dispute between them. She has further stated that Chamu Oraon used to

fight with her husband in drunken state. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted Chamu Oraon of the criminal charges framed against him in

Sessions Trial No. 151/2010 on the ground that there was no evidence of conspiracy between the accused persons. The informant has of course

stated that the appellant has assaulted her husband on his head with a hammer, but none of the prosecution witnesses has supported her on this point.

The prosecution witnessesâ€" PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 â€" have not supported the prosecution’s case and they have been

declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. PW-8 was in the village and has signed the inquest report. PW-7, who is brother of the informant,

on getting information about the occurrence has come there. Their evidence is relevant only to the point that they have seen injuries on the dead body

of Lalit Oroan. The occurrence has taken place at about 9:00 p.m. in the night and it is relevant to record here that the informant has admitted in her

cross-examination that villagers go to bed at 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. There are several houses around the house of the informant,

however, no one has come forward to say that in the night of the occurrence they have heard hulla or that they have seen the appellant fleeing away

from the house of the informant. The accused persons have set up a plea that the informant had illicit relationship with her elder brother-in-law and

when her husband found her in compromising position with him, the informant and her brother-in-law have killed Lalit Oraon. In her cross-

examination, the informant has stated that it takes only one minute to go to the house of Peter, who according to the prosecution is her elder brother-

in-law.

On scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, we find that evidence of the informant on complicity of the appellant in the crime is so cryptic that it does

not inspire confidence. Her testimony in major parts has been found not reliable by the learned Sessions Judge and, accordingly, he has acquitted

Chamu Oraon of the criminal charges framed against him. In fact, all through her testimony the informant has made allegation against Chamu Oraon

except stating that the appellant has struck one hammer blow on her husband and beyond this she has not said anything about him.

In the above state of evidence, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the

appellant, namely, Jhora Oraon under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 24.01.2013 and the order of sentence of RI for life and fine of

Rs.5000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 29.01.2013, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in

Sessions Trial No. 151/2010 are set aside.

The appellant, named above, is acquitted of the criminal charge framed against him in Sessions Trial No. 151/2010.

Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP states that the appellant, namely, Jhora Oraon is in jail custody.

Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Jhora Oraon shall be set free forthwith, if not required in connection to any other case.

In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.337 of 2014 is allowed.

Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.

Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court through FAX.