Koleya Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State.

An affidavit has been filed by the State and it has been stated that appellant No.1, namely, Koleya Oraon had died in the year 2009. No legal heirs of

appellant No.1 are interested in pursuing this appeal, accordingly, this appeal against appellant no.1 stands abated.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 10.01.2006 passed by Sri Rai Satish Bahadur,

Additional Judicial Commisioner No.XVIth, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 425/2003 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been sentenced to

undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence u/s 307 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three

months. They have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months u/s 323 of the IPC. All the sentences are directed to be run concurrently.

Chanho P.S. Case No.64/2002 has been registered on the fardbeyan of Madho Oraon (P.W.-3). As disclosed in the fardbeyan, the informant has

been given a piece of land by his mother-in-law. The appellants are his brother-in-law and they have objection. Due to this, there was dispute between

the parties for which earlier a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. has been initiated which is still pending and has resulted in the alleged incident

dated 28.07.2002 at about 7 PM. The informant has been assaulted by the appellants using lathi. His wife, who has come to rescue him, has been

pushed and also assaulted by the appellants.

On completion of investigation appellants have been charge sheeted. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken. Case has been committed to the court of

sessions and ultimately, charge has been framed under the above section to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate the prosecution story altogether five witnesses have been examined.

P.W.-1, Birsi Oraon, uncle of the informant, has supported the incident.

P.W.-2, Rina Kumari- Niece of the informant, has also supported the incident.

P.W.-3, Madho Oraon, informant of the case has supported the prosecution story.

P.W.-4, Dr. Md. Ehsan is the doctor, has examined the injury of P.W.1 and P.W.-3.

As per doctor, following injuries have been found:-

i. Lacerated wound 3x1/4x1/4â€​ on left side of the upper part of the skull.

ii. Lacerated wound 2x1/4x1/4â€​ just centre part of the skull.

iii. Abrassion ½â€​ superficial to skin on right shoulder.

iv. Tender and swelling on left fore-arm.

As per opinion of the doctor, all the injuries are simple in nature.

P.W.-5, Indrakant Thakur, is the I.O. of the case. He has started the investigation. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellants

has been recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they have claimed not guilty.

Considering the material and evidence on record, the appellants have been convicted by the judgment of coviction passed by the Trial Court, which

has been impugned in the present appeal.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that although P.W.1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are the injured eye witnesses and they supported the

incident but it is a simple scuffle due to land dispute. The type of weapon, the force with which the weapon has been used and the injury caused

clearly suggests that it was simple scuffle between the family members due to property dispute. There was no intention to cause death and as such

conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is not sustainable.

Per contra, learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment of conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. It has been stated that given lathi blow on the head

is sufficient indication that there was intention to kill.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The injured witness has evidenced the prosecution story and there is no infirmity or contradiction and the ocular evidence gets corroboration by

medical evidence of P.W.-4. Thus, the assault by the appellants stands proved.

So far as conviction under Section 307 is concerned, the prosecution has to prove the intention to commit the offence of murder or the nature of injury

which is capable of causing death in ordinary course of nature. In the present case, no evidence has been brought on record to prove the intention of

murder and further the nature of injury, the dispute between the parties and the injury suggests that simple scuffle among the family members have

been taken place and further a compromise has taken place between the parties, on the basis of which bail has been granted by the C.J.M. vide order

dated 04.09.2002. The appellant has remained in custody from 01.08.2002 to 04.09.2002 and thereafter from 09.01.2006 to 17.02.2006 i.e. more than

2 months.

Considering the entire material and evidence on record, the appellants are acquitted from section 307 of the IPC. However, conviction under Sections

323 and 341 is sustained. So far as period of custody is concerned, the appellants have already remained in custody for more than 2 ½ months and

as such sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Fine of Rs.1,000/- is enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. The enhanced amount must be deposited in

the court below within two months from today.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 10.01.2006 passed by Sri Rai Satish Bahadur, Additional

Judicial Commissioner No.XVIth, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 425/2003 is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

Since the appellant No.2, namely, Bishu Oraon is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.