Jharkhand High Court
Budhu Oraon @ Orain Son Of Late Bandya ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1928 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 22.08.2017 and order of sentence
dated 26.08.2017 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2013]
Budhu Oraon @ Orain son of Late Bandya Oraon resident of Village
Raysimla, P.O. Barkuli, P.S. Torpa, District Khunti
.... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Special P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 16.10.2024 Pronounced On: 22.10.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Sole appellant is before this Court against the
judgment of conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per the fardbeyan, on 28.08.2012 about 7 a.m. in the morning, he got
information that his sister- Sumila Oraon has been killed by her husband- Budha
Oraon by assaulting her with lathi and then he had thrown her dead body in a
well. The informant went to see the deceased at her in-laws' house where he
found that the body of his sister was lying in the well of Chungu Oraon of the
same village. Her dead body was taken out with the help of the villagers. It is
alleged that her husband killed her and threw her dead body in the well with an
intention to conceal the crime.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Torpa P.S. Case No.55/12 was registered
under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant. After investigation,
charge sheet was submitted and the appellant was put on trial for the offence
under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
4. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution
and relevant documents including post-mortem examination report, inquest report
have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 - 6.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that P.W.3, P.W.
4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are hearsay witnesses. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are
close relatives of the deceased.
6. Learned counsel on behalf of State has defended judgment of conviction and
sentence.
7. The deceased died a homicidal death, is objectively established by the
Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 8) who has proved the post-mortem examination report
(Exhibit 3). In the post-mortem examination, the Doctor found following ante-
mortem injuries which are as follows: -
i. Fracture of right 9th, 10 & 11th rib in intra auxiliary region.
ii. Large air passage from larynx downward and lungs partially swollen
containing fine froth.
iii. Right heart cavity filled with blood, left side heart empty.
iv. 6" x 4" x oral collection of blood over vertex. No bony injury in scalp
under laying brain contused with extradural collection of blood.
v. Hematoma in front of left ear about left temporomandibular joint.
Doctor opined that cause of death was Asphyxia due to drowning.
8. Presence of ante-mortem injuries on the body as noted above, is strongly
suggestive of the fact that the deceased was indiscriminately assaulted and thinking
her to be dead, was thrown in the well where the death resulted on account of
drowning. Homicidal death is thus proved by the prosecution.
9. Coming to the author of crime, P.W. 1 is the daughter of the deceased and
the appellant is husband of the deceased. She has deposed that her mother was
assaulted with lathi and when they tried to rescue her, he also charged towards
them, as a result they fled away. In the cross-examination, she has candidly
admitted that she has not seen the dead body being thrown into the well. This
witness being the daughter of the deceased, minor daughter was a natural witness
to the occurrence and has stood the test of cross-examination. There is no reason
to disbelieve the account.
10. Other material witnesses had stated that the dead body was found in the
well. Homicidal death of the deceased has been established by the consistent
account of the material witnesses. Witnesses have not exaggerated their account
and except for P.W. 1, all the other material witnesses have stated that they had
not seen the occurrence. Their deposition regarding the dead body having been
found in the well, cannot be discarded.
11. As discussed above, appellant is the husband of the deceased and none
but his daughter has testified that it was the appellant, who has assaulted the
deceased in her presence. After the assault, her dead body was found from the
well and no explanation has been offered by the appellant regarding the
homicidal death of his wife and the dead body being thrown into the well.
Furthermore, extra judicial confession was made before P.W. 3. On these
evidences, it can be safely concluded that it was the appellant who had
indiscriminately assaulted his wife and thrown her into the well. Learned trial
Court has discussed at length the evidence while recording the judgment of
conviction and sentence. There is no ground to interfere with the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
Criminal Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along
with a copy of this judgment.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 22nd October, 2024
AFR/Anit
