Jharkhand High Court
Magra Oraon Son Of Dula Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 September, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 83 of 2006
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2005 and order of
sentence dated 05.12.2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2004]
1. Magra Oraon son of Dula Oraon
2. Benami Oraon son of Dula Oraon
Both residents of Village Saso, P.O. Kugaon,
P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla .... .... .... Appellants
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellants
: Mr. Swapan Maji, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 10.09.2024 Pronounced On: 17.09.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Mr. Swapan Maji, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that
appellant no.2- Benami Oraon has died on 31.10.2021. He produced a photo-
copy of the death certificate of Benami Oraon-appellant no. 2. Let the same be
kept on record.
In view of the aforesaid statement and the fact, this appeal, so far as
appellant no.2- Benami Oraon is concerned, stands abated.
Thus, this appeal is confined to only appellant no.1- Magra Oraon.
Heard the parties.
1. Appellant is before this Court against the judgment of conviction and
sentence in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2004 under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
2. Informant (P.W. 3) of this case is the son-in-law of the deceased. As per
the fardbeyan of the informant, appellants are the step brothers of the deceased
and there was land dispute between them. On the date of incidence i.e.
25.07.2004, in the morning, the deceased had gone to the house of the
appellants and asked for his share of crop, on which they had started abusing
him and threatened him of assault. At this, the deceased returned home and he
was taking his lunch, when appellant- Mangra Oraon came to his house and
apologized for his conduct and also joined him while taking food. In the
evening, when the deceased was going to Lohardaga, Mangra Oraon offered
him his bicycle, and on this pretext, he called him at his home and there, he
was assaulted by both these appellants, Dula Oraon and Saniyaro Devi. At
this, his father-in-law raised alarm and tried to escape from there, when
Mangra Oraon and Benami Oraon caught him after chase, and he was gored
by knife, resulting in fatal injuries of which he died.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, FIR was lodged against both the
appellants- Magra Oraon and Benami Oraon (since dead), Dula Oraon and
Saniyaro Orain under Section 302/34 of the IPC and charge-sheet was
submitted against all the four accused persons, who were jointly put on trial.
Altogether 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and the
relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1-13
including post mortem examination report, inquest report, statement of
witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Learned trial court convicted the original appellants Magra Oraon and
Benami Oraon (since dead) and acquitted the rest.
5. Judgment of conviction and sentence is assailed by Mr. Swapan Maji,
learned counsel on behalf of appellants. It is argued that allegation of stabbing
was specifically directed against Benami Oraon and he died during the
pendency of appeal and accordingly, the appeal preferred on his behalf stands
abated.
6. It is further argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that
the eye witness account is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The
prosecution case is not supported by independent eye witness account.
7. At the outset, it may be noted that in cases of murder which takes place
in the house or near it, the family members are the natural witness and
normally they will not name a person who is not the real assailant. Hon'ble
Supreme Court exposited the meaning of natural witness and disagreed with
the practice of discarding testimony of witness calling them 'chance
witnesses' in Rana Partap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327
"Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting
their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of
the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel,
prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed
on a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be
brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere
"chance witnesses". The expression "chance witnesses" is borrowed
from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every
one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another
man's castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people
are less formal and more casual".
8. In the present case, deceased died a homicidal death is proved by
Doctor (P.W. 4) who found the following injuries: -
I. Sharp cutting wound on left side of neck just above the external end of
left cervical 1½" x ½" x 2½" cutting the left subclavian arteries.
II. Sharp cut on left side of neck just behind and below the left pinna 1 ½"
x ½" x 1".
III. Sharp cut on front of neck above the external notch 1" x ½" x 1½"
cutting the trachea.
Doctor opined that death was due to multiple stab wounds leading to
hemorrhage and shock.
9. The above testimony of the Doctor proves beyond any doubt that the
death was homicidal caused by stabbed wounds.
P.W. 3 who is the informant and direct eye witness has deposed that
Mangra had stabbed the deceased over his neck and chest resulting in his
death. He has reiterated this in the cross examination at para 19. The genesis
of the offence has also been stated by him to be land dispute.
P.W. 1 is the daughter of the deceased and she has corroborated the
testimony of P.W. 3 regarding the factum of incidence. She has deposed that
on the day of incidence, Magra had taken lunch along with them and taken the
deceased to his house on the pretext of giving his bicycle.
P.W. 2 is the co-villager. He has deposed that he had seen appellant-
Magra fleeing from the place of occurrence having knife in his hand. He is
also witness of inquest report and the seizure list and has proved his
signatures.
P.W. 6 is also the villager and has deposed that when he went to place
of occurrence, he saw the dead-body of Rati Oraon and his wife and children
were crying. He further deposed that he saw Magra fleeing away with knife.
P.W. 8 is wife of the deceased and she has also corroborated the
testimony of other witnesses that this appellant had stabbed to death the
deceased- Rati Oraon.
10. In view of consistent testimony of these witnesses which has remained
un-demolished in their cross-examination, I do not find any infirmity in the
judgment of conviction and sentence. The statement of the material witnesses
was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, which has been proved and
marked as Exhibits 10 Series. None of these witnesses have been confronted
by their statement given to the Police under Section 161 or to the Magistrate
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, to elicit any vital contradiction in their
account. There does not appear any cogent reason to disbelieve the account of
the witnesses that it was the appellant, who had lured the deceased to take his
bicycle and then had started assaulting him, and when he attempted to flee
from there, he was chased and stabbed to death. I do not find any infirmity in
the Judgment of the learned trial Court and the Judgment of conviction and
sentence is accordingly affirmed under Section 302 of the IPC.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along
with a copy of this judgment.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Per Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 17th September, 2024
AFR/Anit
