Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Dated 04.10.1997 ... vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 11 March, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 232 of 1997 (R)
with
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 258 of 1997 (R)
Against the judgment dated 04.10.1997 passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh,
learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 73 of
1994. ---
Kiran Lakra @ Oraon wife of Sanjay Lakra R/o Village Lower Burdwan
Compound, PS Lalpur, District Ranchi ... ... Appellant
(in Cr. Appeal DB No. 232 of 1997)
1. Sanjay Lakra
2. Ajay Lakra
Both sons of late Rama Lakra R/o Village Lower Burdwan
Compound, PS Lalpur, District Ranchi ... ... Appellants
(in Cr. Appeal DB No. 258 of 1997)
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellants : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Special P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
C.A.V. on - 06.02.2025 Pronounced on - 11.03.2025
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing
for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P. P. for the
respondent.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment,
the same are being disposed of by this common order.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated
04.10.1997 passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh, learned 3rd Additional
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 73 of 1994 whereby and
whereunder the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 232 of 1997 ® has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 109/302, 307/34
and 452/34 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life for the offence under Section 109/302 I.P.C.; 7 years imprisonment
for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and 3 years imprisonment for
the offence under Section 452/34 I.P.C., while the appellants in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 258 of 1997 ® have been convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 307/34, 302/34 and 452/34 I.P.C. and have been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section
302/34 I.P.C.; 7 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 307/34
and 3 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 452/34 I.P.C.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fard beyan of Dilip
Oraon recorded on 15.08.1993 in which it has been stated that on
14.08.1993 at around 11:00 P.M., the informant had gone to defecate in
the bathroom situated in the corner of the house when his neighbours all
of a sudden by removing the curtain started making assault upon him
with a knife. The informant confronted the assault and after pushing
Ajay Lakra rushed inside his house. It has been alleged that Ajay Lakra,
Sanjay Lakra and the wife of Sanjay Lakra namely, Kiran Lakra entered
inside the house and started searching for the informant who hid himself
beneath a cot and after being unsuccessful in tracing out the informant,
the accused persons had committed assault upon Munni Oraon, the
sister-in-law of the informant. The mother of the sister-in-law of the
informant - Meera Oraon came and tried to save her daughter and at the
instigation of Kiran Lakra, the accused persons stabbed Meera Oraon
who fell down on the ground in an injured state. The accused persons
also knifed Munni Oraon who also fell down on the ground. The
informant had witnessed the occurrence from beneath the cot while the
niece of the informant and the sister-in-law of the informant had also
seen the incident. After the accused persons fled away, the informant
came out of his hiding place and found Meera Oraon dead, while Munni
Oraon was lying in an injured condition. The informant thereafter
intimated his brother - Charu Oraon who was a Chowkidar and the
sister-in-law of the informant was taken to the hospital. The reason for
the occurrence is an old enmity regarding the flow of drain water.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Lalpur P. S. Case No. 115 of
1993 was instituted under Sections 452, 342, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302/34 of
I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and
after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of
Sessions, where it was registered as S. T. No. 73 of 1994. Charges were
framed against the accused persons under Sections 109/302, 452/34,
307/34 and 302/34 of I.P.C. which were read over and explained to the
accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses in
support of its case.
6. P.W. 1 - Birbal Oraon did not support the case of the
prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
7. P.W. 2 - Munni Oraon has stated that on 14.08.1993 at 11:00
P.M., she was in her house when his brother-in-law Dilip Oraon came
running inside the house. The accused persons Sanjay Lakra and Ajay
Lakra were searching for Dilip Oraon with knives in their hands. When
Dilip Oraon could not be found, she was assaulted and when her mother
Meera Oraon came to her rescue, at the instigation of Kiran Lakra, her
mother was assaulted and stabbed by all the accused persons, as a result
of which she died. She was also stabbed with a knife by Sanjay Lakra as
a result of which she became unconscious.
In cross-examination, she has stated that she had regained
consciousness at 4:00 A.M. The accused persons reside in her
neighbourhood. Her husband had gone out for night duty. On the date
of the incident, the informant had gone to the toilet. Dilip Oraon was
rushing towards her room. She does not remember as to whether Dilip
Oraon had entered into the room or not. At the time of the incident,
there were no electric poles near the vicinity of her house. There was no
Dhibri burning between her house and her toilet. She does not know as
to in which place her brother-in-law hid himself. She had deposed that
Kiran had come in search of Dilip at 10:15 P.M. When she was stabbed,
her mother had started shouting, but nobody from the locality had come
to her rescue.
8. P.W. 3 - Bela Kumari has stated that on 14.08.1993, she was
in her house when her sister and mother were assaulted with knife by the
accused persons. When she tried to save them, she was also assaulted by
fists and slaps and she fell down on the ground and became unconscious.
On regaining consciousness, she found her mother lying dead while her
sister was in an injured condition lying on the ground.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her bother-in-law Dilip
Oraon had gone for duty along with Charo Oraon and both had returned
at 3:00 A.M. and the incident was disclosed to them thereafter. Prior to
the occurrence, she did not know Sanjay Lakra and Ajay Lakra. She and
her mother had gone out to the courtyard where her sister was shouting
for help.
9. P.W. 4 - Neelam Khalko has stated that she was in her room
when Dilip Oraon rushed to her room followed by Sanjay Lakra, Ajay
Lakra and Kiran Lakra and they started searching for Dilip. Being
unsuccessful in tracing out Dilip, her mother was pushed and her grand-
mother was stabbed on several occasions. When her aunt Bela Kumari
came to the rescue, she was also subjected to assault.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the house consists of 8
rooms and she was hiding in one of the rooms. The incident had taken
place in the courtyard. Her mother was taken to the hospital by her
father at 12:00 A.M., when the police had arrived.
10. P.W. 5 - Dilip Oraon is the informant who has stated that on
14.08.1993 at 11:00 P.M., he was doing his duty of a Guard. When he
came to his house to defecate, during such act, Ajay Lakra tried to inflict
bodily injury upon him with a knife. He had caught hold of the hand of
Ajay Lakra and at the same time Sanjay Lakra came with another person.
He fled away from the toilet and hid himself beneath the cot in the room.
The accused persons started searching for him and when the mother of
her sister-in-law and sister-in-law came out, the accused persons
quarrelled with her. The mother of his sister-in-law was stabbed by
Sanjay Lakra who also stabbed his sister-in-law. When the accused
persons left, he went to call his brother Charo Oraon and had taken her
sister-in-law to the hospital. The reason for the occurrence is that the
water from his house drains out in the field of Sanjay Lakra. He has
proved his signature in the fard beyan which has been marked as Exhibit
1. He has proved his signature and the signature of Birbal Oraon on the
inquest report which have been marked as Exhibit 1/1 and 1/2
respectively.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the house of Charlie
Tirkey is in front of the toilet. Nobody had come from the house of
Charlie Tirkey despite raising alarm. Nobody had come from the
vicinity. The latrine in which the victim had gone does not have any
light. He had recognized Sanjay Lakra by his voice and not by his
physical features. It was pitch dark. He had hid himself beneath the cot
out of fear. Nothing outside could be visible. He had come out after the
police had arrived. His sister-in-law had given money to the police to
institute the case.
11. P.W. 6 - Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary was posted as Medical
Officer in the Department of Forensic Medicine, RMCH and on
15.08.1993, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Meera Oraon
and had found the following:
Stab wounds:
(i) 3 x 1 cm x cavity deep on the front of left chest situated 5
cm. left to midline. The weapon passes through cartilage
portion of left 6th rib perforates the pericardium and inters
into heart. There was presence of blood and blood clots in
the pericardium cavity and left chest cavity.
(ii) 2 ½ x 1 x 3 ½ cm over left chest front situated 7 cm left so
midline and the trach was confined to wall only.
(iii) 2 x 1 x 2 ½ cm over the left breast.
Internal
There was contusion of right fronto parietal scalp measuring 6 x 4
cm area.
The cause of death was opined to be due to haemorrhage and
shock. The stab wounds were caused by sharp cutting cum pointed
weapon may be by Chhura. The internal wound was opined to be
caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved the post mortem
report which has been marked as Exhibit 2. The injury report has been
proved and marked as Exhibit 3.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had found three stab
wounds and one contusion.
12. P.W. 7 - Dr. Ravi Shankar Das was posted as a Resident
Surgical Officer, Department of Surgery, Rajendra Medical College &
Hospital and on 15.08.1993, he had examined Munni Oraon and had
found the following:
(i) Stab injury left in framammary region 1" in 1 length.
(ii) Stab injury just right to the mid sternum 1" length Chest
Wall deep.
The injuries were opined to be simple in nature.
13. P.W. 8 - Binod Kumar was posted as a Sub-Inspector at
Lalpur Police Station and on 15.08.1993, he had come to learn that in
Burdwan Compound, a person has been murdered while one has
suffered injury and after making station diary entry, he had proceeded to
the place of occurrence for verification of such incident. He had recorded
the fard beyan of Dilip Oraon. He had proved the fard beyan which has
been marked as Exhibit 4. The endorsement on the fard beyan has also
been proved and marked as Exhibit 5. The inquest report has been
proved and marked as Exhibit 6. He had sent the dead body for autopsy
to Rajendra Medical College & Hospital. He had inspected the place of
occurrence which is in Lower Burdwan Compound in the house of Charo
Oraon which consists of 6 rooms out of which 4 rooms are inter-
connected and in the eastern side of the room lies a courtyard. In the
eastern side is situated a room and near it a bathroom bounded on all
sides by bricks with an open roof. The said bathroom has bamboo gate
instead of a door. He had recorded the re-statement of the witnesses. He
had proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit 7. On
completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the open space near the
bathroom was in the courtyard. He has recorded the fard beyan at 12:45
P.M.
14. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under
Sections 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the
incident.
15. It has been submitted by Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that there are major contradictions in the
evidence of the witnesses and such evidences cannot be relied upon for
the purposes of conviction of the appellants. She has further submitted
that P.W. 2 is an injured eye-witness who has subsequently stated about
the informant having not witnessed the incident. While referring to the
evidence of the informant who has been examined as P.W. 5, submission
has been advanced that P.W. 5 could recognize the appellant - Sanjay
Lakra by his voice and not by his physical features, as it was pitch dark
and that nothing was visible from beneath the cot, where he was hiding.
The presence of the informant at home at the time of the incident has
been countered by P.W. 3 who is the sister-in-law of the informant. The
place of occurrence has also been disputed by the learned counsel for the
appellants as according to the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), the incident
had not taken place in the open space near the toilet which contradicts
the assertion of some of the eye-witnesses. Ms. Sinha, learned counsel
has further submitted that there were several persons in the vicinity, but
none have been produced by the prosecution for recording their
evidence. In support of her contentions, reference has been made to the
case of ""State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh" reported in (2020) 12 SCC 630.
16. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P. P. has submitted
that the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 clearly reveals
about the presence of the appellants in the house of the informant and
committing indiscriminate assault upon Meera Oraon and Munni Oraon.
Though there are certain contradictions, but the same are natural and not
of such nature which would create a doubt over the case of the
prosecution.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and have also perused the trial court records.
18. The informant in his fard beyan has stated about the assault
which was initially started against him while he was defecating and his
providential escape ended in a fatal assault upon Meera Oraon who had
come to the stage in order to save her daughter Munni Devi. The assault
with knife according to the informant was witnessed by him from
beneath a cot where he had hid himself from being subjected to bodily
injury by the assailants. The contents of the fard beyan seems to have
faded considerably when we look into the evidence of the informant
examined as P.W. 5 in which he has stated that it was pitch dark and
nothing was visible from underneath the cot. Even from the toilet where
the appellant Sanjay Lakra is said to have assaulted P.W. 5 with a knife,
the identity of Sanjay Lakra has been deciphered by P.W. 5 not from his
physical features, but from his voice, though, nothing has been said
either in the fard beyan or by P.W. 5 of the appellants ever uttering any
word when the initial assault upon the informant had commenced. P.W.
5 having not seen the occurrence has been strengthened by the evidence
of P.W. 2, the injured eye-witness who has stated about P.W. 5 having
hid himself and therefore had not seen the incident. P.W. 2 has also
stated about absence of electricity or any Dhibri burning at the place of
occurrence. She has stated about the incident having taken place in the
open space between her room and the toilet. The daughter of the P.W. 2
who has been examined as P.W. 4 has stated about seeing the incident
occurring in the courtyard. The presence of the informant at the place of
occurrence seems to have been totally discarded by P.W. 3 who has
stated that the informant had gone for his duty at 11:00 P.M. and
returned at 3:00 A.M. P.W. 3 had claimed that she was also assaulted,
but there is nothing on record to indicate that she had suffered any
injuries. None of the witnesses are consistent with respect to the place of
occurrence and the Investigating Officer examined as P.W. 8 has
concluded that the open space between the room and the toilet is not the
place of occurrence. The various contradictions appearing in the
evidence of the witnesses, the doubt regarding the identity of the
assailants, absence of any witnesses of substance from the
neighbourhood, failure of prosecution to establish the place of
occurrence - all these put an obstruction for the prosecution to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubt. In this context, we may refer to the
case of "State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh" (supra) as cited by the learned
counsel for the appellants in which it has been held as follows:
"10. Additionally, the so-called eyewitnesses to the incident
have described different places as the scene of offence. None of
the eyewitnesses are consistent so far as the scene of offence is
concerned. This means that each of the eyewitnesses must
have allegedly seen the incident at different places and
happening in a different manner. The suppression of the
actual FIR, coupled with the conflicting versions of the so-
called eyewitnesses relating to different scenes of offence and
different stories collectively would reveal that the prosecution
wanted to suppress and has suppressed the real incident and
culpability of real culprits. The origin and genesis of the
prosecution is clearly suppressed in the case.
11. All the eyewitnesses have deposed that 18 accused have
assaulted the deceased mercilessly by using farsi and lathis.
Curiously, the deceased had sustained only the following
injuries:
"(i) Incised wound on the left parietal region of skull size 2½
× ½ × ½ inches;
(ii) incised wound on the right leg size 1⅓ × ⅓ inches;
(iii) an abrasion on left forearm size 1½ × 1 inches; and
(iv) haematoma size 9 × 7 inches."
14. The High Court in its judgment [Ratan Singh v. State
of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2001, decided on 3-2-
2010 (MP)] has detailed a number of contradictions in the
evidence of the eyewitnesses and major omissions which were
overlooked by the trial court.
15. For example, PW 21, the wife of the informant, has
deposed that all the accused persons caused injuries to the
deceased Devi Singh and the complainant Khilan Singh.
However, in the next paragraph itself, she has deposed that
she was inside her house when the incident took place. Later
she came out of the house and saw the incident thereafter. She
has denied the suggestion that the incident occurred inside
her house and specified that she never gave such a statement
before the police. The said contradiction is marked as Ext.
D/11. Marshalling her evidence, the High Court, in our
considered opinion, rightly disbelieved the version of PW 21
by describing her as untrustworthy.
16. PW 18, Prem Singh, has deposed that the informant
and the deceased were lying in an injured condition on the
floor at the door of the house of the informant. He came to
know about the incident only after he arrived at the house of
Khilan Singh and saw the dead body lying just outside the
door. This is at odds with the deposition of PW 22, according
to whom the incident has occurred inside her house. Lastly, in
Para 8 of his evidence, PW 18 has deposed that he did not see
the incident which occurred inside the house of Khilan Singh.
The said contradiction is marked as Ext. D/10. The High
Court has meticulously evaluated the evidence of the other
eyewitnesses, namely, PWs 11, 12, 8 and 22 also. The
contradictory versions of all the eyewitnesses have been
highlighted by the High Court, while coming to its
conclusion.
17. The sum and essence of the case of the prosecution as
found in the charge-sheet was that the incident happened
inside the house of the complainant Khilan Singh. However,
the witnesses have tried to improve the case of the prosecution
by deposing that the incident has occurred outside the house
of Khilan Singh and that they have seen the incident. PW 12
has gone to an extent of deposing that none of the accused
including the respondents entered the house of Khilan Singh.
18. Thus, on a re-evaluation of the material on record by
us, we find that the High Court being the first appellate
court, by meticulously scanning all the evidence in great
detail, has rightly concluded that the prosecution has not
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the
respondents. The evidence of the prosecution is full of
embellishment, fabrication, distortion and suppression of true
story.
19. We find that the view taken by the High Court is one
of the possible views in the facts and circumstances of the
case. There is no reason to disagree with the reasons assigned
and the conclusions arrived at by the High Court, more
particularly when the evidence of all the eyewitnesses is
inconsistent, not cogent and unreliable. Hence, no
interference is called for."
19. We therefore on the basis of the discussions made herein set
aside the judgment dated 04.10.1997 passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh,
learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 73 of
20. Both these appeals are allowed.
21. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the
liabilities of their bail bonds.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 11th day of March, 2025
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
