Jharkhand High Court
Bandhana Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 778 of 2002
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
10.10.2002 and 11.10.2002 respectively passed by learned Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in S.T.No. 188 of 2001]
------
1. Bandhana Oraon, Son of Handu Bhagat
2. Kishun Oraon, Son of Handu Bhagat
Both are resident of Village-Kurkel, P.S. Chainpur, Dist. Gumla
... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant s : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.PP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 15/10/2025 Pronounced On 30/10/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal was originally preferred by six
appellants, out of them, appellant Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 died during
the pendency of this appeal and their appeals stand abated
vide order dated 19.08.2025.
2. This appeal is heard on behalf of appellant No. 2 namely
Bandhana Oraon and appellant No. 3 namely Kishun Oraon.
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction and Order of sentence dated 10.10.2002 and
11.10.2002 respectively passed by learned Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in S.T.No. 188 of
2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held
guilty for the offences under sections 302/149 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
4. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi,
learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vinit Kumar.
Vashistha, learned Spl.PP for the State.
Factual Matrix:-
5. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
09.02.2001, the younger brother namely Ramji Oraon of
Informant (P.W.-7) had gone to Kashir Bazar. In the evening, at
about 7:00 PM, the informant heard Halla of Bachao-Bachao
coming towards roadside. Upon this, informant(P.W.7)
Sitaram Uraon along with his wife namely Kamli Devi (P.W.6)
went to road and saw that the accused persons namely Handu
Oraon armed with Lathi, Bandhana Oraon, Santosh Uraon and
Jay Mangal Oraon armed with Tangi and Kishun Oraon and
Budhram Oraon armed with Danda and Rupan Oraon armed
with Baluwa were indiscriminately assaulting to the brother of
the informant with the respective weapons. The informant and
his wife tried to save him but the accused persons threatened
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
them to kill. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away
saying that they have killed Ramji Oraon and if any case before
the Police is lodged, they will also kill the informant. It is
alleged that informant brought his brother Ramji Oraon to his
home but he died. The motive behind the occurrence is
previous enmity between the parties.
On the basis of above information, Chainpur P.S. Case
No. 6/2001 FIR was registered for the offences under sections
147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences against
the above appellants.
6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the
appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After
conclusion of trial, impugned judgment was passed which has
been assailed in this appeal.
7. In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution.
P.W.-1 Shekhar Oraon (Elder brother of the informant)
P.W.-2 Sita Devi
P.W.-3 Jagmani Devi (Widow of deceased)
P.W.-4 Mangru Oraon (Father of deceased)
P.W.-5 Guddu Oraon
P.W.-6 Kamli Devi (wife of the informant)
P.W.-7 Sitaram Oraon (Informant)
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
P.W.-8 Dr. A.D.N. Prasad
P.W.-9 Ramanand Prasad (Investigating Officer)
8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary evidence has also been adduced by the
prosecution: -
Ext.1- Signature of Shekhar Oraon in Seizure List
Ext.1/1-Signature of Mangra Oraon in Seizure List
Ext. ½ & 1/3 -Signature of Shekhar Oraon and Mangra
Oraon in Inquest Report
Ext. ¼- and 1/5 - Signatrue of Sita Ram Oraon and
Shekhar Oraon in F.I.R.
Ext.2- Post-Mortem Report
Ext.3- Fardbeyand
Ext.4-Formal FIR
Ext.5-Inquest Report
Ext.6- Seizure List.
Ext.7-Case Diary
9. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence and the case of the defence is denial
from the occurrence and false implication due to previous
enmity
Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
10.Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that
out of nine witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution,
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
P.W.-1 Shekhar Oraon (brother of the deceased), P.W.-2 Sita
Devi, P.W.-3 Jagmani Devi(wife of deceased), P.W.-4 Mangru
Oraon (Father of the deceased), P.W.-6 Kamli Devi (wife of the
informant) and P.W.-7 Sira Ram Oraon (Informant), all are the
family members of the deceased and claimed to be eye
witnesses but their testimony goes to show that all are hearsay
witnesses and none have seen the occurrence. P.W.-8 is the
Doctor who has conducted autopsy on the deceased and P.W.-
9 Ramanand Prasad is the Investigating Officer. There is no
dispute that the deceased was murdered by assaulting him but
the involvement and participation of the appellants has not
been proved conclusively by the prosecution through cogent
and reliable evidence. No incriminating article has been
recovered from the appellants connecting them with the
alleged offence of murder. The learned trial Court has
miserably failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record and committed
serious error of law in convicting the appellants and the
impugned judgment and order is not really sustainable in the
eye of law and fit to be set aside and the appellants deserves to
be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
Submissions on behalf of the State
11. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has
submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
aptly appreciated and analyzed the evidence available on
record and rightly convicted the appellants. The impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants does not
suffer from illegality or infirmity, calling for any interference.
There is no legal substance in the grounds raised on behalf of
the appellants that there was no any previous enmity between
the appellants and the deceased. Hence, this appeal is devoid
of merits and fit to be dismissed.
12. We have gone through the record along with the impugned
judgment in the light of rival contentions of the parties and
perused the same.
13. The sole point for determination in this appeal is "as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of
the appellants suffer from any error of law, which requires any
interference in this appeal?"
Analysis, reasons and decision:
14. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, it appears
appropriate to discuss the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in this case.
P.W.-1 Shekhar Oraon has deposed that his brother Ramji
Oraon has been murdered, while returning from Kashir Bazar.
He came to know about the occurrence from his elder brother,
namely, Sitaram Oraon (Informant) that Ramji Oraon is being
assaulted by the accused persons, namely, Handu Oraon,
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
Bandhana Oraon, Kishun Oraon, Jaymangal Oraon, Santosh
Oraon, Budhiram Oraon and Rupan Oraon by Tangi, Baluwa
and Lathi. He saw the dead body of his brother. The police
have seized from the place of occurrence blood-stained soil
and trouser of deceased and seizure list was prepared over
which he also signed along with his father and proved his
signature as Exhibit-1/1. He has also signed over the inquest
report prepared by the police and proved his signature as
Exhibit ½ and signature of his father as Exhibit 1/3.
Admittedly, this witness is a hearsay witness, having no
personal knowledge of occurrence.
P.W.-2, Sita Devi has also deposed that at the time of
occurrence, on 9.2.2001, at about 7:30PM, she was on her home.
Informant came and told that Ramji Oraon has been killed. He
also disclosed that Bandhana Oraon, Jaymangal Oraon, and
Santosh Uraon have assaulted by Tangi and Rupan Oraon by
Balua due to which Ramji Oraon died. She has only seen the
dead body of the deceased sustaining grievous injury on head,
ear and hand. Therefore, this witness is also a hearsay witness
of occurrence, having no personal knowledge.
P.W.-3, Jagmani Devi is the wife of the deceased. She has also
come to know about the occurrence from her Bhaisur, namely,
Sita Ram Oraon (informant). She has seen the dead body of her
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
husband. She has expressed no enmity with the accused
persons.
P.W.-4, Mangru Oraon has also come to know about the
occurrence from Sita Ram Oraon and went to place of
occurrence and saw Ramji Oraon in seriously injured
conditions. This witness is also a hearsay witness.
P.W.-5, Guddu Oraon is also a hearsay witness from Sita Ram
Oraon. He also went to the place of occurrence and saw the
dead body of the deceased. There is nothing else in his
evidence.
P.W.-6, Kamli Devi is the wife of the informant, who has
deposed that on the date of occurrence, in the evening, Ramiji
Oraon was returning from Kashir Bazar and was murdered
near Habicus Plant situated nearby her house. She heard Halla
of Ramji Oraon, then along with her husband came out of her
house and saw that the accused persons were assaulting to
Ramji Oraon by Lathi, Tangi and Baluwa, due to which, he
died. She has admitted in her cross-examination that at the
time of occurrence, she and her husband did not raise any
alarm, rather, went inside their house due to fear and shut the
door from inside and saw the occurrence peeping from the
hole of the door. All over the night, she along with her
husband stayed in their home. Shekhar Oraon, Mangru Oraon,
Sita Devi and Guddu Oraon came on next day of occurrence.
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
P.W.-7, Sita Ram Oraon is the informant and has deposed that
on 09.02.2001, at about 7:30PM, he heard Halla of his brother,
namely, Ramji Oraon Bachao Bachao then he along with his wife
went towards the place of occurrence and saw that the accused
persons Budhiram Oraon, Handu Oraon, Kishun Oroan,
Bandhana Oraon, Jaymangal Oroan, Santosh Oraon and
Rupan Oraon armed with Tangi, Blauwa and Lathi were
assaulting his brother. He attempted to rescue his brother but
he was threatened to be killed then they entered into their
house due to fear. His wife went inside the house and this
witness went to the house of his brother Shekhar Oraon and
father Mangru Oraon and returned to place of occurrence, till
then, his brother had died. In the next day, police came to his
house and his fardbeyan was recorded, over which, he has
proved his signature as Exhibit ¼ and brother Shekhar Oraon
as Exhibit 1/5.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that on the date
of occurrence, he had also gone to Kashir Bazar but he
returned at 5:00PM. He met with the widow (P.W.3) of the
deceased at about 8:00PM, in the night. He, however, admits
that after the occurrence, he along with his brother Shekhar
Oraon went to Kashir Market for calling a Doctor and reached
there at about 9-9:30 PM and brought Doctor S.K. Gupta, at
that time, none of the villagers were present. He also admits
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
that from Kashir Market, Chainpur Police Station is about
three and half kilometers but they did not go to the Police
Station, rather, in the morning, at about 4:00 AM, he went to
Chainpur Police Station and reached their at 5:00AM and his
statement was recorded by the police. Thereafter, police came
at the place of occurrence, at that time also, no villagers came
on the spot. He also admits that he has no litigating terms with
any of the villagers. He also admits that till third day of the
occurrence, he did not talk with any of the villagers about the
occurrence. He has denied the suggestions of the defence that
some unknown persons have killed his brother, while he was
returning from market and he has falsely implicated the
accused persons in this case.
P.W.-8, Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, posted as CAS at Sadar Hospital,
Gumla who conducted post-mortem examination and found
following injuries present on person:
(i) Fracture of the skull over the right parietal region as
well as occipital region was present with large amount of
clotted blood inside the cranium.
(ii) Multiple ribs fracture on right side of chest only. Both
injuries were ante-mortem in nature and injury No. (i) was
sufficient to cause death due to head injury.
P.W.-9, Ramnandan Prasad is the I.O. of this case. According
to his evidence, on 09.02.2001, informant Sitaram Oraon along
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
with his brother Shekhar Oraon came at Police Station and
informed about murder of his brother Ramji Oraon. He
recorded his fardbeyan (Exhibit-3). Accordingly, formal FIR
(Exhibit-4) was registered. He also recorded the statement of
informant's brother Shekhar Oraon and went to place of
occurrence, which is situated in village Kurbail. In between the
house of Sitaram Oraon and accused Handu Oraon there is a
Bari near the road and on both side of road, there is bushes of
Putus. He found profuse blood at the place of occurrence
towards south of the place of the occurrence. There is house of
accused Handu Oraon and Bandhana Oraon and others and
towards north-east, there is a house of accused Budhiram and
He prepared the inquest report of deceased (Exhibit-5) and
also prepared the seizure list (Exhibit-6) of the blood-stained
soil. He sent the dead body for post-mortem at Sadar Hospital,
Gumla. He also arrested the accused Santosh Uraon and other
accused persons surrendered before the Court. After finding
sufficient evidence submitted chargesheet against all the
accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149
and 302 of IPC.
In his cross-examination, he admits that blood-stained soil
was sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination but no
correspondence was conducted for obtaining the report. He
has got no evidence regarding any previous dispute between
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
the deceased and accused persons. He also admits that Sita
Devi has not stated like an eye witness of the occurrence about
any specific overt act of any accused persons. He has denied
the suggestion of defence that the informant and his brother
had not gone to police station in the night rather they
approached the police station on the next day morning and
also have not disclosed name of any accused persons as an eye
witness of the occurrence, he has submitted charge-sheet only
on the basis of afterthought given by the witnesses particularly
the informant and his investigation are perfunctory and is only
a table work. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that
his investigation is defective.
15. Form the aforesaid evidence, it appears that all the witnesses
of this case are closely related with the deceased and are the
family members including the informant. No enmity has been
proved between the deceased and the accused persons by any
of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It also appears
that except P.W.-7, Informant, Sitaram Uraon and his wife
Kamli Devi (P.W.6), all other witnesses are hearsay witnesses
regarding the occurrence and involvement of the appellants
in the alleged offence. It appears that in his fardbeyan
(Exhibit-3), the informant Sitaram Uraon has clearly disclosed
that on hearing Halla of his brother, at about 7:00PM, he along
with his wife came out and proceeded towards road, then
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
saw that all the seven accused persons were indiscriminately
assaulting through their respective weapons like Lathi, Tangi
and Baluwa. When, he attempted to rescue his brother, then
they were also threatened to be killed. According to
informant (P.W.-7), he went to the house of his brother
Shekhar Oraon and along with him, he went to Police Station
in the night itself and also brought Doctor but the said
testimony has not been corroborated by his own wife Kamli
Devi, who has deposed that due to fear, she along with her
husband remained in her house. She along with her husband
were peeping from the hole of the door and seen the
occurrence. She has also disclosed that in the next morning,
her husband along with his brother Shekhar Oraon went to
the Police Station. There is also no doubt that the occurrence
took place on the road which is situated in between the house
of informant and accused persons. Therefore, there appears
material contradictions as regards the manner of occurrence,
place of occurrence and involvement of the appellants in
assaulting the deceased at the particular time of occurrence.
The conjoint reading of evidence of P.W.-7, Informant,
Sitaram Uraon and his wife, Kamli Devi (P.W.6) goes to show
that both of them were in their house throughout the night
and did not disclose the occurrence to any of the villagers and
they have also not been able to prove any enmity with the
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
appellants. No corroborative evidence like blood-stained soil
and trouser of the deceased seized in the case has been
proved and there is no F.S.L. report regarding presence of
blood of the deceased. The post-mortem report of the
deceased (Exhibit-2) does not correspond with the manner of
occurrence as alleged by the informant (P.W.7) and his wife
(P.W.-6) namely Sitaram Uraon and Kamli Devi, respectively
who claimed to be eye witnesses. According to these
witnesses, there was indiscriminate assault to the deceased
caused by Baluwa, Lathi and Tangi i.e. sharp cutting weapon.
The injuries sustained by the deceased shows that his skull
was fractured and ribs was also fractured and above injuries
were caused by hard blunt object. Therefore, the claim of
P.W.-7 and P.W.6 about indiscriminate assault by Baluwa and
Tangi becomes falsified.
16. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the
case and close scrutiny of eye witnesses in the light of their
cross-examination demolishes the very prosecution story as
regards genesis, manner and place of occurrence. No motive
behind the occurrence has also been brought on record as
claimed in the F.I.R. itself. Therefore, we are constrained to
hold that the learned trial Court has committed serious error
of law while evaluating evidence of the witnesses in isolated
manner without considering the materials elicited in the
2025:JHHC:32702-DB
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses claimed to be
eye witnesses of the occurrence. The whole approach of the
learned Trial Court in such a grievous charge against the
appellants appears to be very reluctant and casual.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned trial Court in S.T. No. 188/2001 against the appellants
is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
18. In result, the appellants are acquitted from the charges
levelled against them.
19. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the
liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.
20. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 30/10 /2025
Basant/-N.A.F.R.
