Ranchi v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 363 of 2002 Against the Judgment of conviction dated 14.05.2002 and order of sentence dated 18.05.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-I, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 488 of 2000. -------- 1. Bhogta Oraon son of late Dome Oraon 2. Birsa Oraon son of Shri Bhogta Oraon 3. Sohan Oraon son of Shri Bhogta Oraon 4. Suka Oraon son of Shri Bhogta Oraon All are residents of village Buchidari, P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi. ............APPELLANTS Versus The State of Jharkhand ………RESPONDENT …… For the Appellants : Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. J.S.Tripathi, Advocate. …… P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
we find that there are three eye witnesses in this case. P.W. 4 is the informant and daughter of the deceased. P.W. 3 is another eye witness so is the P.W. 6. Be it noted that P.W. 6 is not related with any of the parties and he is an independent witness. 9. P.W. 4 supported her statement given in the FIR and stated that while she was returning along with her father, these appellants assaulted her father, resulting in his death. She stated that Sohan was armed with tangi (axe) and rests with lathis. She also stated that they were questioning her father and were seeking clarification as to why they were given less share in the ancestral land. She also stated that Page/3 the appellants assaulted on her left hand, which resulted in a fracture. 10. What has been stated by P.W.4 has been corroborated by independent witness P.W.6. He stated that he was going to market by motorcycle when he saw the deceased was being chased by these appellants. He further stated that he forbade the appellants from assaulting the deceased, but they assaulted the deceased. He further stated that the daughter of the deceased (P.W.4) tried to save her father, but she was also assaulted. Though this witness had stated that Bhogta Oraon was carrying an axe and rests were armed with lathis, which is not in consonance with the statement of P.W. 4, who stated that it is Sohan who was carrying axe and rests with lathis, but according to us, it is of no relevance at all. The fact, which is established is that the deceased was chased and assaulted by these appellants and the fact that P.W. 4 is an eye witness, has also got corroboration from the statement of P.W.6. Though P.Ws. 4 and 6 stated that P.W. 4 was assaulted by the appellants, but we find that there is no corroborative evidence in support of injury of P.W. 4 as neither the doctor who treated the injured was examined as witness nor the injury report was produced. 11. Further, we find that P.W. 3 is an eye witness, who stated that he was in his field in the morning, when he saw Bhogta Oraon, armed with axe, came and was chasing the deceased. There were three unknown persons who could not be identified. He stated that Bhogta assaulted the deceased with axe. This witness thereafter fled as he was afraid after seeing the entire incident. He stated that he had not seen others as to whether they had assaulted the deceased or not. Thus, from his evidence, it is an established fact that Bhogta Oraon had assaulted the deceased. The other witnesses are the hearsay witnesses. They have heard about the incident from P.W. 4. 12. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem is P.W.7. He found only three injuries on the body of the deceased, which are as follows:- (i) Abrasion: (a) 5 x 4 cm. Left shoulder front, (b) 7 x 3 c.m left Clavicular region, and (c) 4 x 1 c.m left forehead. (ii) Bruise: (a) 6 x 4 cm right chest front upper part. (iii) Lacerated wound: (a) 2 x1 cm x soft tissue left mandibular region, and (b) 3 x 2 cm. X soft tissue left forehead. Page/4 On internal examination, He found defuse contusion of soft tissue of upper part front of chest and adjoining front part of neck. There was presence of subdural blood and blood clots on both sides of brain in small amount. From the postmortem report and also from the evidence of the doctor, we find that there are three abrasions, one bruise and two lacerated wounds. The doctor opined that the deceased died as a result of the said injury. 13. From the medical evidence and from the eye witnesses, we find that the prosecution has proved its case that these appellants assaulted the deceased. Further, from the postmortem report and the evidence of the doctor, it is also proved that the death is homicidal. 14. It is the prosecution case that the appellants were armed with axe and lathis but from the postmortem report, we could not find any sharp cut injury on the body of the deceased. Even the doctor has opined that the injury has been caused by hard and blunt substance. This evidence suggests that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. If there would have been any intention to commit murder of the deceased, when it is the case of the prosecution that the appellants armed with axe, they could have easily assaulted the deceased with the sharp cutting edge of the axe and could have given blow on the vital part of the body, but this was not done. 15. We find from the postmortem report (Ext.-2) that there is only one blow on the jaw, but there is no corresponding fracture, which would suggest that the impact of the assault was not such, which would cause a fracture. Be it noted that there was no fracture located by the doctor. 16. From the evidence of P.W. 4, we find that there was continuing land dispute between the parties. It is the case of the appellants that they had got lesser share in the ancestral property, due to which, they were dissatisfied. They questioned the intent of the deceased in giving them less share in the property. Thus, they were enraged because of the act of the deceased, which resulted in the assault. 17. All these facts suggest that though the deceased was Page/5 assaulted by the appellants, but there was no intention on their part to commit his murder. Thus this case will not fall within the ambit of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 18. Based on the evidence, we convert the conviction of the appellants to Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code from Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant No. 1 Bogta Oraon on the date of judgment was aged about 70 years and now he must have been of 92 years. The others were about 30-25 years, thus they are more than fifty years as on date. 19. Appellant No. 1- Bhogta Oraon has remained in custody for three months seven days whereas, appellants- Birsa Oraon, Suka Oraon and Sohan Oraon have remained in custody for three months seven days, three months three days and two years five months thirteen days respectively. Thus, their sentence is reduced to the period which they have already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. 20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 21. 22.
Arguments
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. J U D G M E N T Dated: 28.11.2024 (at 10:30 A.M.) By Court. There is a direction given by this Court which has been published in the daily cause list since long to the effect that in old criminal appeals, no adjournment will be granted. 2. This case was in the master list which was published on 23.11.2024 with an instruction that the matter would be taken up on regular basis and no adjournment would be given. 3. 4. This case has been listed today for final hearing. Despite the aforesaid instructions and directions today, the learned counsel for the appellants prays four weeks’ time which, is refused by the Court. He submits that today, he is not in a position to argue and he refuses. Page/1 5. Thus, we appoint Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court and argue this Criminal Appeal on behalf of the appellants. She argues and receives the papers. 6. This matter will be taken up today at 2:15 PM. Later on At 02:15 P.M: Heard the learned amicus, learned A.P.P and the learned counsel for the informant.. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 14.05.2002 and order of sentence dated 18.05.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-I, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 488 of 2000, whereby and where under, the appellants having been found guilty of charge under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant No. 1 has also been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. of three months. 3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of P.W.4, who is the daughter of the deceased. She stated that her father was working in the field when, she went to serve breakfast to her father. Her father stated that as he has finished his work, he will have breakfast at home. When they were returning, Bhokta Oraon, Sohan Oraon, Birsa Oraon and Suka Oraon, who are the agnates, confronted them and protested on the ground that they were given less share in the land. Verbal altercation had taken place when it is alleged that the deceased was chased by the appellants armed with deadly weapon and assaulted him, resulting in his death. The informant stated that Sohan was armed with tangi (axe) and the rest were armed with sticks. She also stated that in course of the said assault, when she tried to save her father, she was also assaulted with lathi by Bhogta Oraon. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Ratu P.S. Case No. 61 of 2000 under sections 302/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against these appellants for committing the offence under Sections 302/34 and 323 IPC and accordingly, the cognizance was taken and the case was Page/2 committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed and trial proceeded. 4. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether eight witnesses, who are as follows:- PW-1: PW-2: PW-3: PW-4: PW-5: PW-6 PW-7 PW-8 Siffurddin Ansari, Bigal Oraon, Mahendra Mahto, Basanti Devi (the informant) Prem Bandhan Oraon, Devendra Mahto, Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu, Ashok Kumar Mandal 5, Several documents have also been exhibited in this case, which are as follows:- Ext.1 Ext.1/1 Ext.2 Ext.3 Ext.3/1 Ext.4 Signature of P.W. 1 on Inquest Report. Signature of Bandhan Oraon on Inquest Report. Postmortem Report. Fardbeyan. Formal FIR. Inquest Report. 6. After closure of evidences, the statements of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which they have pleaded innocence. Appellants also adduced four witnesses in their defence. 7. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charges levelled against the appellants to be proved and, thereafter, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 8. After considering the evidence and upon hearing the parties,
Decision
Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of. The learned amicus assisted this Court in proper manner. In a very short time, she got herself fully prepared. Considering the able assistance of the amicus, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay Rs.7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred) to the learned counsel Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, as her remuneration. 23. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the High Court Legal Services Committee for doing the needful. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: the 28th November, 2024. NAFR/Anu-Tanuj/Cp.-3. Page/6