Ghamru Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4249 Jhar

      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1955 of 2017

Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2017 and order of
sentence dated 08.09.2017 passed by Sri Rajeev Anand, learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner XIII, Ranchi in S. T. No. 343 of 2015.
                             ---

Ghamru Oraon                         ...     ...     Appellant

                     Versus
The State of Jharkhand               ...     ...     Respondent


                         ---
For the Appellant        : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent       : Mr. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.

                   ---
                Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                   ---


C.A.V. on - 27.07.2022               Pronounced on - 18.10.2022

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 08.09.2017 passed by Sri Rajeev Anand, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XIII, Ranchi in S. T. No. 343 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. The fard beyan of Suraj Oraon was recorded on 16.02.2015 in which it has been stated that on 15/16.02.2015, he was sleeping in his rrom along with his brother Mahadeo Oraon and sisters Anita Orain, Laxmi Orain and Sarita Orain, when at about 5:30 AM, his neighbour Sukra Oraon had informed that his parents are lying in a pool of blood in the courtyard of Ghamru Oraon (appellant). On such information, when they reached the house of Ghamru Oraon, they saw their parents lying unconscious in the courtyard. Both the victims were immediately taken

to Mandar for treatment. The reason for the occurrence is that Ghamru Oraon was assaulting his old mother and children at which, the parents of the informant intervened and due to such intervention assault was committed upon them.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mandar P. S. Case No. 18 of 2015 was instituted against Ghamru Oraon for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Ghamru Oraon for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where it was registered as S. T. No. 343 of 2015. Charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 15 witnesses.

P.W. 1 - Anita Orain has deposed that the incident is of 16.02.2015 at 4:00 AM when she was sleeping in the house. She was present along with her sisters Sarita Orain and Laxmi Orain and brother Suraj Oraon and another brother had gone to the field. She has stated that Ghamru Oraon was shouting in his house when her mother - Soka Orain and father - Budhu Oraon had gone to the house of Ghamru Oraon. Ghamru Oraon was beating his sons and her parents had gone to save them. The mother of Ghamru Oraon disclosed to Sukra Oraon that Soka Orain has been murdered after which Sukra Oraon had divulged this fact to others. When she and the others went to the house of Ghamru Oraon, she found her parents lying in a pool of blood. Both were taken to Mandar for treatment. In course of treatment at RIMS, both had died.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that the incident came to light on the disclosure made by Sukra Oraon. She has further stated that what has been deposed by her is on the basis of hearsay knowledge.

P.W. 2 - Laxmi Orain is also a hearsay witness as she has come to know about the occurrence from Sukra Oraon.

P.W. 3 - Mahadeo Oraon has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence, but has come to know about the same from Sukra Oraon.

P.W. 4 - Sukra Oraon has stated that on 16.02.2015, early in the morning Ghamru Oraon was abusing his children. He had gone to the house of Ghamru Oraon when his mother had called him. When he went, he found Budhu and Soka lying on the ground and when he was threatened by Ghamru, out of fear he had fled away. He had thereafter disclosed the incident to the children of Budhu. Both the injured were taken to the police station and thereafter to the hospital and in course of treatment at RIMS both had succumbed to their injuries.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that when the incident occurred, he was in his house sleeping. After half an hour from the incident, the mother of Ghamru disclosed about the same.

P.W. 5 - Suraj Oraon who is the informant has deposed that at the time of the incident, he was sleeping in his house. Ghamru Oraon was assaulting his mother and sons. He does not know as to when his parents had gone to the house of Ghamru Oraon on hearing such commotion. When Sukra informed them about the assault they had gone to the place of occurrence. When they had reached the place of occurrence, he had found his parents lying in an unconscious state. A vehicle was arranged and both were taken away. Apart from others Mahadeo and Sarita had taken them away.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of incident, he was in his house and he had come to know about the incident from Sukra Oraon.

P.W. 6 - Bhola Sahu has deposed that Jatru Oraon has disclosed to him that the parents of Suraj Oraon has been assaulted by Ghamru Oraon by either lathi or hammer. The parents of Suraj were taken to Referral Hospital in a vehicle. He had brought them to RIMS and on way Budhu Oraon had died.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Jatru Oraon had told them about the occurrence at 5:00 AM.

P.W. 7 - Sarita Kujur is another daughter of the deceased. She is a hearsay witness as she has come to know about the incident from Sukra.

P.W. 8 - Jatra Oraon has stated that about 16 to 15, he had come to know about the incident from the children in the village. Both were taken to Referral Hospital. The doctor present had bandaged the

wounds and had referred them to RIMS. He has identified his signature and the signature of Mahadeo Oraon in the inquest report of Soka Orain and Budhu Oraon and which has been marked as Exhibit 1 and 1/1.

In cross-examination, he has reiterated that the incident came to his knowledge from the children of the village.

P.W. 9 - Bigun Oraon has proved his signature in the seizure list with respect to seizure of a lathi and the same has been marked as Exhibit 2.

P.W. 10 - Etwa Oraon has identified his signature in the seizure list prepared on account of seizure of a danda which has been marked as Exhibit 2/1.

P.W. 11 - Nikki Orain has deposed that at the time of the incident, she was in her house. She is therefore, a hearsay witness.

P.W. 12 - Pradip Oraon did not support the case of the prosecution and hence has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 13 - Dr. Sanjay Kumar was posted as Assitant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology in RIMS, Ranchi. On 16.02.2015, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Budhu Oraon and had found the following injuries:

Rigor mortis found all over the body. Injuries:

(i) There was a lacerated wound of 4 cm x 3 cm x bone deed situated on left occipital part of head.

(ii) There is another wound of 8 cm x 5 cm also located on left side of occipital part of head.

(iii) Scalp is diffusely contused in occipital and left side of head.

(iv) Depressed fracture of skull bone of size 6 x 5 cm is located in left occipital bone.

(v) Blood clot is present in both side of brain but more in left side.

The cause of death was opined to be due to head injury. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance/object. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 3.

On 16.02.2015, he had also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Soka Orain and had found the following injuries:

Rigor mortis found all over the body.

Injuries:

(i) There was a lacerated wound of 5 cm x 5 cm upto bone deep situated on left occipital part of head.

(ii) Lacerated wound of 3 cm x 2 cm on frontal part of right side of head.

(iii) Scalp is diffusely contused in occipital and left side of head.

(iv) Crack fracture of skull was present in occipital part

(v) Blood clot was present in occipital lobe of brain.

The cause of death was opined to be due to head injury caused by hard and blunt object/force. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 3/1.

P.W. 14 - Dr. H. K. Sinha was posted as Assistant Director, SFSL, Ranchi. On 07.05.2015, he had received a sealed wooden box which contained one bamboo lathi marked as Exhibit 'A'. As a result of serological examination, blood on Exhibit marked 'A' was found from a human source of origin. He has proved the report which has been marked as Exhibit 5.

P.W. 15 - Singh Rai Sundi was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Mandar police station. He had recorded the fard beyan of Suraj Oraon and he has identified the writing and signature in the fard beyan which has been marked as Exhibit 6. He has proved the endorsement on the fard beyan, which is in the hand-writing of Narendra Kumar Sinha and bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit 6/1. He has also proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit 7. He was entrusted with the investigation. On 16.02.2015, an information was received that two persons were assaulted at Kargel village. A sanha was entered and on the way, he met the relatives of the victims who were coming to the police station. Both were sent to Referral Hospital, Mandar from where they were referred to RIMS. The relatives of the victims took them to RIMS for better treatment. He had thereafter gone to the village for investigation.

He has identified his signature and hand-writing in the seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit 2/2.

He has inspected the place of occurrence which is the courtyard of Ghamru Oraon situated at village Kargel Dau Kocha. The courtyard is

bounded on three sides by rooms. It was in this courtyard, where the assault had taken place. He had recorded the statement of Sukra Oraon, Mahadeo Oraon, Anita Orain, Sarita Orain, Laxmi Orain, Jatru Oraon, Salmi Orain, Etwa Oraon and Bigun Oraon. He has proved the fard beyan which has been marked as Exhibit 8. He has identified the signature and writing of Pancham Singh in the inquest report which has been marked as 1/02 and 1/03.

On 17.02.2015, he had recorded the confessional statement of the accused. He had also recorded the statement of Nikki Orain and Pradeep Oraon. On 06.05.2015, he has sent the seized bamboo to FSL after taking permission of the court. He had obtained the post mortem report of both the deceased. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 I.P.C.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had reached the place of occurrence at 7:00 AM and Ghamru Oraon was found present. He had stayed at the place of occurrence for about one hour. He had seized a lathi from the place of occurrence.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his involvement in the murders.

7. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are no eye-witness to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution is assembled on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances is not complete and the benefit of doubt therefore should accrue to the appellant.

8. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. has taken us through the evidence of witnesses and has strongly argued that the recovery of the dead body and the murder weapon from the courtyard of the appellant are unimpeachable evidences which connects the appellant to the act of murder of two persons.

9. We have heard the learned counsels for respective sides and have also gone through the lower court records.

10. The genesis of the occurrence seems to be an act of assault allegedly committed by the appellant with a lathi upon the parents of the informant on account of their intervention as the appellant was assaulting his mother and children. Admittedly, there are no eye-witness

to the occurrence and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the appellant has been convicted. We have there to discern the evidence adduced by the prosecution to come to a conclusion as to whether the same warrants conviction of the appellant or not.

11. P.W. 5 is the informant and one of the sons of the deceased. He has deposed that he had come to know about the incident from Sukra Oraon. His siblings who have been examined as P.W. Nos. 1, 3 and 7 have consistently stated about the information received from Sukra Oraon. Sukra Oraon, who has been examined as P.W. 4 though had projected himself in his examination-in-chief as an eye-witness, but such assertion seems to have evaporated in his cross-examination as he has categorically stated that when the incident occurred, he was in his house sleeping. P.W. 4 was informed about the incident by the mother of the appellant, but she has not been examined as a witness. Therefore, all these witnesses are hearsay in nature.

12. So far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, a pivotal aspect of the case is the place of occurrence which is the courtyard of the appellant. The occurrence had taken place early in the morning as per the testimony of the children of the deceased. As per the evidence of P.W. 15, the information about the assault had reached to him at 6:30 AM itself. It is not the case of the defence that some intruders had committed the assault. The parents of the deceased were living in their own house, but were found in a serious condition in the courtyard of the appellant. As per P.W. 15, the appellant was at the place of occurrence, when he had reached the place of occurrence on receiving information about the assault. A lathi found in the courtyard of the appellant was seized and was sent to FSL and the report indicates that the blood found on the lathi was of human origin. The post mortem report indicates that both the deceased had injuries on their scalp which were caused by hard and blunt substance. The post mortem report therefore corroborates the manner of assault upon the deceased. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. except for simple denial has not explained the circumstances which led to both the deceased being found in the courtyard of the appellant. It is therefore proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant by giving repeated blows with lathi had committed the murder of two unarmed and innocent persons.

13. The learned trial court had rightly noted that the chain of circumstances are complete while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him accordingly and having found no reasons to conclude otherwise, this appeal stands dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any also stands disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 18th day of October, 2022 R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3