Jharkhand High Court
Jagarnath Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen, Subhash Chand
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 78 of 2016
.....
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.10.2015 and order
of sentence dated 08.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Lohardaga, in S.T. No.41 of 2011).
.........
Jagarnath Oraon, S/o Late Loha Oraon ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
.........
For the Appellant : Ms. Apoorva Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor
-----------
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand
JUDGMENT
Per Ananda Sen, J.: Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Ms.
Apoorva Singh and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Saket Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the
appellant under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of
conviction dated 07.10.2015 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2015,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga,
whereby the sole accused has been convicted for the offence committed
and punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
awarded R.I. for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine has been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for 6 months.
3. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant submits that the learned
Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of
IPC as the basic ingredients of Section 307 of IPC is not attracted,
which is evident from the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
There is no material, nor there are any evidence to suggest that the
injury was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. There is no
material to suggest that the appellant had intention to commit
murder of the injured. In absence of knowledge that the injury which
is being inflicted is sufficient to cause death, no conviction under
Section 307 of IPC can be sustained. She further submits that P.W.-1,
P.W.-6 and P.W.-8 have clearly falsified the prosecution case, so far as
it relates to the seizure. There is contradiction in the statement of
P.W.-1, P.W.3 and P.W.-10, which are fatal for the prosecution. The
ocular evidence also does not match the medical evidence, which is
sufficient ground to acquit the appellant. The prosecution case,
becomes doubtful, if the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is
analyzed properly. When the prosecution case become doubtful,
benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant and he should be
acquitted.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that
medical evidence corroborates with the testimony of the eye
witnesses. P.W.-3 being the wife of the deceased is the eye witness,
who has seen the occurrence and the assault upon her husband. She
has narrated that the nose was cut by the appellant and the aforesaid
statement is corroborated by the medical evidence as the Doctor who
found incised wound on the nose and the upper part of the lip and
the nasal contour was totally lost. Even P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, who
reached immediately after the occurrence had seen the injury. The
injury report and the manner in which the injury was caused clearly
suggest that the appellant had intention to commit murder, thus the
appellant has been correctly convicted under Section 307 of IPC. He
lastly argues that in view of the nature of evidence, which is
clinching, the appellant cannot be acquitted in this case.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have
gone through the records. The fardbeyan is Exhibit-4 and the same is at
the instance of Bijyenti Oraon. In the fardbeyan she has stated that she
along with her husband was in the house and they were ready to take
dinner, then her husband (Sakichand), came out from the house to wash
hands in the courtyard, when, villager, Jagarnath Oraon came and
called her husband and took him towards his house. She also followed
them and saw her husband was sitting outside the house of Jagarnath
Oraon. After some time, Jagarnath Oraon came out from his house
along with Basuli (sharp cutting weapon) and started assaulting her
husband on the nose and mouth, resulting in injured. She further stated
that her husband sustained multiple grievous injury on his head,
shoulder and chest then she raised alarm to protect her husband.
Thereafter, some villagers assembled there, but Jagarnath Oraon
succeed to flee. The said occurrence took place at 09:00 P.M. She further
stated that the reason behind the occurrence is that her husband used to
address Jagarnath as "Diaan Bisai" (witch) consequently he got
provoked and became angry thus, assaulted her husband.
6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Kairo P.S. Case No.08 of 2011 was
registered under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC. The police after
investigation filed chargesheet No.08 of 2011 dated 28.02.2011 under
Section 341, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC.
7. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charges under Section 367, 307
and 341 of IPC were framed and he was put on trial.
8. Twelve witnesses have been examined in this case.
P.W.-1- Dhina Oraon, P.W.-2- Dr. Shambhu Nath Choudhary, P.W.-3-
Bijyanti Orain, P.W.-4- Mahadeo Oraon, P.W.-5- Fagu Oraon, P.W.-6-
Ratia Oraon, P.W.-7- Yodhha Oraon, P.W.-8- Sukra Oraon, P.W.-9-
Bablu Oraon, P.W.-10- Radheshyam Sah, P.W.-11- Lalji Singh, P.W.-12-
Sakichand Oraon.
Some documentary evidence have been proved and marked as
exhibits, which are as follows:-
Exhibit-1 Signature of Dhina Oraon on written report.
Exhibit-1/1 signature of witness on fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 Entire injury report.
Exhibit-2/1 Signature of witnesses on seizure list.
Exhibit-2/II Signature of Sukra Oraon on seizure list.
Exhibit-3 Signature and handwriting of Kalayan Biruli on
fardbeyan.
Exhibit-3/1 Endorsement on Fardbayan
Exhibit-4 Seizure list prepared in hand writing of I.O.
Material Exhibit-1- Small axe (Basuli)
P.W.-1 (Dhina Oraon) has deposed that he was awakened by
his daughter Hulita and when he went to the place of occurrence, he
saw his uncle Jagarnath (appellant) was quarrelling with his nephew
Sakichand. He stated that Sakichand was assaulted with basuli on his
back, nose and head, as a result of which his nose was cut and teeth was
broken. He thereafter snatched the basuli from the appellant. In his
cross-examination has stated that there was previous enmity between
the appellant and the victim as the victim's wife assaulted the appellant
due to some altercation between the two. He further stated that due to
darkness, he could not see that there was altercation between Sakichand
Oraon and Jagarnath Oraon.
P.W.-2 (Dr. Shambhu Nath Choudhary) is the Doctor, who
examined the victim and found the following injuries:-
"A completely incised wound of nose and upper lip leaving behind
total loss of nasal contour with exposer of two nasal aperture on both
sides with a thin septum in between and loss of upper lip with upper
teeth exposed completely with torrential bleeding.
Nature of injury was grievous caused by sharp edge of sharp
cutting weapon. The witness during his evidence has proved
handwriting and signature made on injury report which is marked as
Exhibit-2.
P.W.-3 (Bijyanti Oraon) is the wife of the victim Sakichand Oraon
and informant of this case. She has stated that she along with her
husband was in the house and they were ready to take dinner, then her
husband (Sakichand), came out from the house to wash hands in the
courtyard when Jagarnath Oraon came there and called her husband
and took him towards his house. She followed them and after some
time saw Jagarnath Oraon coming out from his house along with Basuli
(sharp cutting weapon) and started assaulting her husband, on the nose,
shoulder and head, as a result of which his nose got cut, his chest and
head sustained injury. Thereafter she raised alarm to protect her
husband, when some villagers assembled, but Jagarnath Oraon succeed
to flee. She further stated that she took her husband to Sadar Hospital,
Lohardaga, where her husband was treated and thereafter for better
treatment, he was take to Bariyatu, Ranchi. After treatment of her
husband, the informant came back and gave her written report. She
identified her signature on the written report, which was marked as
Exhibit-1/1. In her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant and
her husband are agnates and that there was no previous enmity
between them. She further stated that on scream of her husband, she
reached the house of Jagarnath Oraon and saw that her husband was
lying down in a pool of blood. She has further stated that in her cross
examination that she was the first person to reach the place of
occurrence and some villagers came only thereafter.
P.W.-4 has been declared hostile.
P.W.5 (Fagu Oraon) has stated that he reached the place of
occurrence and saw the victim in injured state. He further stated that at
that time Jagarnath Oraon was in his courtyard. He further stated that
victim was injured on his nose, head, teeth, back and chest. He also
stated that Jagarnath ran from there and he had not seen him on the
place of occurrence. In cross-examination, has stated that when he
reached the hospital, he fainted. He further stated that he did not see
the accused assaulting the victim.
P.W.6 (Ratiya Oraon) has deposed that he put his signature on the
seizure list, which is marked as Exhibit-2/1. In cross-examination has
deposed that he does not know anything about the occurrence and also
that he does not know what was written on the seizure list.
P.W.-7, P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 have been declared hostile.
P.W.-10 (Radheyshyam Sah) is the Investigating Officer of this case
and he has proved the written report prepared by Kalayan Biruli,
Officer-In-Charge of Kairo P.S., which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He
has taken the statement of P.W.-4 and P.W.-7, who had stated that the
appellant had assaulted the victim by basuli. He further stated that he
has recorded the statement of seizure witnesses i.e., P.W.-8 and P.W.-6
on 19.02.2011 and prepared the seizure list in their presence after
seizing the basuli from the house of the appellant. In cross-examination,
the Investigating Officer stated that he had not sent the victim to the
hospital and after two days of the occurrence, the informant had come
to the police station. He further stated that the injury report of the
victim was found in the police station, but who kept the injury report in
the police station has not been mentioned by him in the case diary. He
further stated that on the date of occurrence, he had not seized anything
and on the next day, he recovered the blood stained basuli from the
place of occurrence, but did not seize any blood stained soil from there.
He stated that he had sealed the recovered basuli by cloth, but had not
taken the signature or mark of any witness on the seal nor did he
himself sign. He further stated that he had not mentioned about the
recovery of seized basuli in the seizure list. He further stated that he did
not take the statement of Dr., Sambhu Nath Choudhary.
P.W.-11 (Lalji Singh) is a formal witness and he proved the
materials related to Kairo P.S. Case No.08 of 2011 and Court M.R.
No.12/12 which was exhibited as material Exhibit-I. He further stated
that in his cross-examination that the material exhibit does not have the
signature of any police officer or any Judicial Officer.
P.W.-12 (Sakichand Oraon) is the victim of the case, who stated that
on the date of occurrence he was sitting on the door step of his uncle,
Ghina Oraon when the appellant arrived armed with Basuli and had
given a blow on the neck, which landed on his face due to which his
nose got cut, thereafter, he gave several blows on the head and the neck.
The victim tried to catch him but he fled. In cross-examination, he stated
that at the time of occurrence only wife of Ghina Oraon was present
there and none else, but after the occurrence on raising alarm villagers
came.
9. After conclusion of the evidence, the statement of the appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Ultimately the Trial Court finding
the appellant guilty has convicted him under Section 307 of IPC.
10. We have gone through the entire record, evidence as well as the
impugned judgment. It is the case that the prosecution by means of
sharp cutting weapon assaulted Sakichand Oraon. From the evidence,
we find that P.W.-3, who is the informant and wife of the victim, has
categorically stated that after dinner when her husband came out of the
house to wash his hands, appellant came and called her husband to his
house and her husband accompanied him. She also followed them.
After some time, the appellant came out with a basuli in his hand and
assaulted his husband in his nose, shoulder and head. This statement
has been corroborated by statement of P.W.-1 and to some extent by
P.W.-5 also. P.W.-2 is the Doctor, who examined the victim also found
injuries which has described by the witnesses. He opined that the said
injuries are grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon.
The evidence of the Doctor corroborates with the testimony of the said
witnesses.
11. In this case, the most important witness is P.W-12 who is the
injured witness. Being the injured, he has categorically described how
the appellant assaulted with basuli on his back, neck and face. He also
showed the wound to the Court. The testimony of this witness inspire
confidence of this court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lakshman Singh vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 191
held that the evidence of the injured witness has greater evidentiary
value and unless compelling reasons exists, their statement are not to be
discarded lightly.
12. Now we have to see whether the alleged offence comes within the
purview of section 307 of IPC. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
provides for punishment for attempt to murder, it is necessary to quote
Section 307 of IPC, which is hereunder:-
"Section 307 - "Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act
caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned."
From reading of Section 307 of IPC, it is clear that there has to be
intention or knowledge of the act, which has been committed. What is
required by the prosecution to establish in a charge under Section 307 of
IPC is that the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge that if he
successfully executes the alleged act, death could have caused.
13. In this case, it is well proved that weapon used by the accused was a
sharp cutting weapon and the nature of injury inflected to the victim is
grievous. Witnesses have categorically stated that the appellant has
repeatedly assaulted the victim by basuli on the back side of the neck,
shoulder, chest, face and nose and because of this assault the victim
sustained grievous injury and he fainted. The appellant by repeatedly
assaulting the victim had done his best to kill him and it was only his good
luck that victim finally survived. This repeated assault on the vital part of
the body, shows the intention of the appellant to cause death of the victim.
14. We find the testimony of the injured witness as reliable and the ocular
evidence fully corroborates, the medical evidence on the point of assault.
There is intention of the appellant of committing murder of the victim.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
prosecution has fully proved the charge under Section 307 of IPC against
the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the judgment dated
07.10.2015 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2015, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga is affirmed.
15. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
16. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
17. Let Trial Court Record along with a copy of this judgment be sent to
the concerned trial court forthwith.
18. Last but not the least, we appreciate the effort of the learned amicus
curiae in disposal of this case and direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal
Services Committee to ensure payment of appropriate remuneration to the
learned amicus curiae.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 01st July 2024
R.S./AFR
