Jharkhand High Court
Ratan Oriya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.702 of 2002
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.08.2002 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chiabasa
Singhbhum (west) in S.T. No.15 of 2000 arising out of Bandgaon P.S.
Case No.26 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. Case No.138 of 1999]
------
1. Ratan Oriya, son of Lamba Oriya aged about 35 years
2. Boita Oriya, son of Barjo Oriya aged about 27 years
Both are resident of village-Jiray, P.S. Bandhgaown, District-
Singhbhum(west) .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Suman Kr. Ghosh, Amicus Curiae
For the Resp. State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 17/09/2025 Pronounce On 14 /10/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Subodh Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet
Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the State.
2. Originally the instant appeal was preferred by 6 appellants,
out of them, appellant No.1- Lamba Oriya, appellant No.2-
Barunda Oriya, appellant No.3-Pawala Oriya and appellant
No.5- Fagu Oriya have died and their appeal have been abated
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
vide order dated 23.07.2025. The names of surviving
appellants, namely, Ratan Oriya and Boita Oriya have been
renumbered and the appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid
alive appellants.
3. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant for
setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
both dated 24.08.2002 passed by learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Chiabasa Singhbhum (west) in S.T. No.15 of
2000 arising out of Bandgaon P.S. Case No.26 of 1999
corresponding to G.R. Case No.138 of 1999, whereby and
whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the
offences under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
Factual Matrix:-
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the night
of 17.07.1999 at about 8:00 pm, the informant's father after
taking dinner went to sleep at machan situated nearby the
house and the informant along with his wife also went to sleep
in his house. It is further alleged that on 18.07.1999 at about
7:00 am, when the informant wake up and went towards
machan then saw his father was killed by giving tangi blow on
his head by some unknown miscreants. It is further alleged
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
that the informant has not expressed enmity with any of the
villagers and also admitted that no one has seen committing
the murder of his father. It is further alleged that the informant
informed about the occurrence to Village Munda, since the
police station situated at a great distance.
The above statement of informant, Berga Oreya was
recorded by S.I. Jawahar Pandey(P.W.7) and on the basis of
which, Bandgaon P.S. Case No.26 of 1999 was registered for
the offence under section 302 of IPC against unknown
miscreants. The names of appellants have been surfaced
during investigation and they have been charge-sheeted for
the offence under section 302/34 of IPC. After taking
cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions,
where S.T. No.15 of 2000 was registered. The accused persons
have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to
be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and
conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which
has been assailed in this appeal.
5. In course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses have been examined
by the prosecution, namely:-
P.W.1-Puni Oreya (wife of informant)
P.W.2- Berga Oreya(informant)
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
P.W.3-Bul Oreya
P.W.4-Raghu Nath Oreya
P.W.5-Laxman Oreya
P.W.6-Narayan Singh Bodra
P.W.7- S.I. Jawahar Pandey
P.W.8-Devendra Tiwary
P.W.9- Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta
6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary evidence has also been adduced:-
Ext. 1- Signature of Bersa Oreya in fardbayan
Ext.1/1- Signature of Raghunath Oreya in inquest
report and
Ext.1/2- Signature of Birsa Munda in inquest report.
Ext.2- Entire Fardbayan
Ext.3- Seizure list
Ext.4- Inquest report
Ext.5- Formal FIR
Ext.6- Post-mortem report
Ext.7. C.C of charge-sheet of S.T. No.363 of 1999
7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence. The case of defence is totally denial
from the occurrence and false implication due to land dispute.
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
8. Learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as
documentary evidence led by the prosecution, recorded
findings about the guilt of the appellants and sentenced them
as stated above.
Submission on behalf of the Appellants:-
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that
the FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants and there
was specific claim of the informant (P.W.2) that he has no
dispute or any enmity with any villagers and also admits that
no one has seen the occurrence. In course of investigation, the
informant's wife, Puni Oreya(P.W.1) projected herself as an
eye-witness of the occurrence and has given a vivid
description how the deceased was assaulted by appellants and
died. It is quite strange that FIR was lodged after two days of
occurrence but the husband of Puni Oreya(informant) has
whispered nothing about any accused persons rather lodged
the FIR against unknown persons. Learned trial court has
committed serious error of law in believing the testimony of
P.W.1, who claims to have informed her husband (informant)
about the occurrence of assault by the appellants to her father-
in-law at the time of incident itself but the informant has taken
no action at all and has also not taken step to inform the same
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
to Village Munda. It cannot be believed that a son, after
knowing about the assailants of his father, will spare them
going unpunished. It is further submitted that except the
testimony of P.W.1, not a single witness examined by the
prosecution has supported the prosecution story as regards the
involvement of the appellants for the alleged offence of
murder. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellants is based upon
un-creditworthy evidence of P.W.1, which is fit to be set aside.
The appellants deserve acquittal from the charges leveled
against them.
Submission on behalf of State:-
10. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. for the State refuting the
arguments of learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1,
who is sole eye-witness and she has vividly described the
happening of incident, which was seen by her. There is no
substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants
and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
11. The sole point for determination in this appeal is "as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of
the appellants suffers from any error of law and based beyond
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
the weight of evidence available on record, which requires any
interference in this appeal?"
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
12. We have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of
the appellants in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the
both side.
13. It appears that out of 9 witness examined in this case, only
P.W.1, Puni Oreya and P.W.2, Besra Oreya(informant) are
prime witnesses of facts, the other witnesses are hearsay
witnesses from P.W.1 and P.W.2. Therefore, the testimony of
prime witnesses requires to be discussed at first.
P.W.1-Punii Oreya is the wife of the informant.
According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence in the
night after taking dinner, she was weaving mat towards
eastern door of her house and her husband was in the room.
She has further deposed that her father-in-law Bir Singh Oreya
was sleeping towards western door in a room. Meanwhile, she
heard some noise of her father-in-law and went towards his
room lighting a torch and saw Lomba Oreya and Boeta Oreya
had caught hold of her father-in-law and Pawala Oreya,
Basanda Oreya and Fagu Oreya and Ratan Oreya were
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
assaulting on his head by balua. She went inside the room of
her husband and woke up him and told that some miscreants
are assaulting to his father and also suggested her husband to
flee away towards forest area otherwise, they will also be
killed, then this witness along with her husband fled away
towards forest area. From the forest area, she informed to
Village Munda, namely, Budhu Munda and his two sons, Bul
Oreya and Birsa Oreya and disclosed that her father-in-law has
been killed by the accused persons. She also disclosed about
the incident to Laxman Oreya and Ragunath Oreya.
In her cross-examination, she specifically admits that
the incident is of Saturday night and she along with her
husband informed to police station about the occurrence on
Monday. She also admits that at the time of lodging report at
police station neither she nor her husband have disclosed the
name of any accused persons. She also admits that there was
land dispute and scuffle with the accused persons since six
months prior to the occurrence.
P.W.2-Berga Oreya is the informant of this case and
the son of deceased. According to him, on Saturday, he was
sleeping in his room then his wife (P.W.1) woke up him and
told that Pawala Oreya, Basanda Oreya, Lonwa Oreya, Fagu
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
Oreya, Ratan Oreya and Boyata Oreya have killed his father.
She also told that we should flee away towards forest area
otherwise they will kill us. Thereafter, this witness along with
his wife went towards forest area. In the morning, he went to
the house of Budhu Munda and informed about the occurrence
and his two sons, Birsa Oreya and Bul Oreya. He has further
deposed that on Saturday, the Village Munda called upon all
the six accused persons then they started scuffling and
threatening to kill the informant and his family memers, if any
case is instituted against them. Thereafter, on Monday, this
witness along with his wife went to the police station and
lodged this case.
In his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted
that he has not seen any person while assaulting his father. He
fled away towards forest area in the dark night. He also admits
that there was a land dispute from six months prior to the
occurrence. He has denied the suggestion of defence that due
to land dispute, he has falsely implicated the accused persons
in this case.
P.W.3-Bul Oreya is the son of Budhu Munda.
According to his evidence, Puni Oreya (P.W.1) and Berga
Oreya(P.W.2) came to his house and told that while she was
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
weaving mat, she heard some noise from outside where her
father-in-law was sleeping and when she approached there,
she saw that all the accused persons, six in numbers, were
assaulting her father-in-law by tangi. Thereafter, this witness
went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the
deceased, Bir Singh Oreya under pool of blood. The accused
persons were called upon to confess their guilt.
P.W.4-Raghu Oreya is a witness of inquest report and
he has proved the signature along with signature of one Birsa
Munda on the inquest report, which is marked as Exts.1/1 and
1/2. There is nothing in his evidence about the occurrence.
P.W.5- Laxman Oreya is also a hearsay witness and
came to know about the murder of the deceased from the son
of Budhu Munda, namely Bul Oreya and Birsa Oreya. He has
also seen the dead body of the deceased lying in the injured
condition at his house under pool of blood.
P.W.6- Narayan Singh Bodra is a village Manki and he
is also a hearsay witness of the occurrence from Bul Munda,
Jogo Hembram and Sabaul Oreya, who informed him on
18.07.1999 at about 9:30 am that Bir Singh Oreya has been
murdered by Pawala Oreya, Lomba Oreya, Fagu Oreya, Ratan
Oreya, Bokta Oreya and one more whose name has not been
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
recalled by this witness. He went to the house of the deceased
and saw the dead body. He further admits that all the accused
persons were called upon but they were threatening to kill the
informant and his family member, if the case is instituted.
P.W.7- S.I. Jawahar Pandey is a partial Investigating
Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 19.11.1999 at
about 7:30 am, he got message through rumor that in village
Jikahi, one person has been murdered. Thereafter, he entered
Sanaha No.307 dated 19.07.1999 and proceeded to the village
Jikahi at the house of the informant Berga Oreya. He recorded
his fardbayan (Ext.1.) He has also inspected the place of
occurrence and seized bloodstained soil from there and
prepared the seizure list(Ext.3) in presence of witnesses. He
prepared inquest report of the deceased (Ext.4). He has
recorded the statement of witnesses, Puni Oreya, Berga Oreya,
Bul Oreya, Pesra Budhwa Oreya, Raghunath Oreya,
Raghunandan Oreya, Kalipado Gorai, Jogo Hembram and
Naryan Singh. The dead body of the deceased was sent for
post-mortem. Thereafter, he handed over the further charge of
Investigation to S.I. Devendra Nath Tripathi on 19.12.1999. He
further states that after registration of FIR, he interrogated the
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
witnesses but none has disclosed the name of any accused
persons.
P.W.8- S.I. Devendra Tiwari has simply submitted
charge-sheet on the basis of previous investigation.
P.W.9-Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta has conducted the
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Bir Singh Oreya
and found following injuries:-
Ante-mortem injury:-
(i) incised wound 6" x 4"x 3" involving drain mass
situated transversally on the left parietal bone
On dissection:-
(i) Head- as described above
(ii) Thorax-Thoracic cage was intact lungs intact.
Heart chambers contained some amount of
blood
(iii) Abdomen-Stomach contained watery fluid, liver,
spleen and kidney were intact.
Opinion:- Cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to
above injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon.
This witness has proved his signature on post-mortem
report marked as Ext.6.
14. From the aforesaid discussion of testimony of purported eye-
witnesses, P.W.1, Puni Oreya and P.W.2, Berga Oreya, we find
that it is crystal clear that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 has
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
disclosed the name of assailants of the deceased in their
respective statements made before the police and at the time of
lodging FIR. Although, admittedly more than 48 hours have
elapsed since the happening of occurrence. P.W.2, Berga Oreya
has also admitted that his wife told him that accused persons
have killed his father but had not informed at the time of
commission of the offence. He also admits that he has not seen
the occurrence of assault caused by any of the miscreants.
Similarly other witnesses of the facts, who are admittedly
hearsay witnesses have also not informed to police about the
murder of the deceased caused by the present appellants. It is
obvious from the evidence of P.W.7, S.I. Jawahar Pandey(I.O.)
that he got information about the occurrence through rumor
on 19.07.1999 in the morning at about 7:30 am. Therefore,
neither the informant nor his wife nor any other villagers to
whom the incident was disclosed have informed the
occurrence at police station. Therefore, extrajudicial confession
of the accused persons before the Village Munda does not hold
much water. The land dispute with the appellants is also
admitted by the informant and his wife.
15. It appears that learned trial court has miserably failed to
appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who have
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
materially improved their version and projected themselves as
eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Although, nothing was told in
their statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the
Investigating Officer. There is no other connecting evidence
leading towards the guilt of the appellant. The whole approach
of learned trial court is based upon conjecture and surmises
and giving undue weightage to the testimony of P.W.1, who
appears to be absolutely unreliable witness.
16. Having apprised with the ocular testimony of the witnesses as
discussed above, we are of the firm view that the learned trial
court has committed serious error of law while recording the
guilt of the appellants without any cogent and reliable
evidence. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of
the appellants passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Chaibasa, Singhbhum (West) in S.T. No.15 of 2000.
17. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction
and sentence of the appellants is, hereby set aside and this
appeal is allowed.
18. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from
liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.
19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the concerned trial court for information and
needful.
21. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered
by Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, learned Amicus Curiae and direct
the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee
to process fees of Rs.7,500/-(Rs. Seven Thousand and Five
Hundred) to Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
22. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order be served
to Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee
for processing the fees to learned Amicus Curiae.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 14/10/2025
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
