IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Jaga Oman, s/o Late Bandhna Oman - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 554 of 2015
Decided on : 28-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 307 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Judge has found that victim himself has stated before his wife and investigating officer that accused assaulted him and doctor who treated him first has categorically held that injury found on his person was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and, accused was liable to be convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code - Amicus contended that given serious condition of victim evidence of his wife that he has named appellant as his assaulter is doubtful - Amicus has highlighted several other aspects and lacunae in case of prosecution to press hard upon us not to believe testimony of informant - Dying declaration of deceased is admissible in evidence under section 32(1) of Evidence Act which provides that statement of a person as to cause of his death, or as to any of circumstances of transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which cause of his death comes into question is a relevant fact – Held, An injury over abdominal area extent of which was such that the intestine was bulging out was definitely serious and grievous in nature, but at same time victim was able to speak - Court has accepted evidence of informant that her husband made a dying declaration before her, and given fact that he died 14 days after he was stabbed by his brother are such circumstances which unerringly indicate that the appellant had no intention to cause death and the requisite intention as envisaged under clause Thirdly or knowledge that his act was so imminently dangerous that in all probability would cause death as provided under clause Fourthly to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be inferred. Most importantly, the findings recorded that the stab wounds had degenerated and there was sign of peritonitis in the wound reflect that deceased was not provided proper treatment - Criminal Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar J.
1. Bero P.S Case No.42 of 2008 was registered on 11.07.2008 against Jaga Oraon, the appellant, under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder Paya Oraon. The informant is the wife of Paya Oraon who succumbed to the injuries on 25.07.2008 and, accordingly, the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the report vide order dated 01.08.2008. In her fardbeyan which was recorded at 11:00 p.m. on 10.07.2008 at Primary Health Centre, Bero, the informant has alleged that in the evening of 10.07.2008 she was with her husband at home - her husband was drunk. At about 07:00 p.m., Jaga Oraon who is her elder brother-in-law came there and took away her husband on the pretext of enjoying drink. At about 08:00 PM, when she heard screams of her husband she came out and saw that Jaga Oraon carrying a Nepala was running towards his house and behind him her husband drenched in blood and pressing his abdomen came there. He told her that Jaga Oraon has assaulted him and fled away. She has seen two knife blows over abdomen and one injury on the head of her husband and his intestine was bulging out. With the help of Mangra Oraon, Etwa Oraon and Brijmani Kujur she brought her husband to Bero Hospital where her fardbeyan was recorded by Garib Mochi, S.I of Bero Police Station. The informant has alleged that the elder brother of her husband assaulted him with an intention to murder due to a land dispute between them. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial the informant was examined as PW3. The neighbours of the informant, namely, Brijmani Kujur-PW4, Birsa Oraon-PW5, Etwa Oraon-PW6, Mangra Oraon-PW7 and Damu Oraon-PW8 were examined by the prosecution, however in the Court, PW6, PW7 and PW8 have turned hostile. Dr. Lal Manjhi who has first attended Paya Oraon at Primary Health Centre, Bero observed two incised wounds around his abdominal area, the intestine was coming out of the abdomen. Dr. C.S. Prasad who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Paya Oraon on 25.07.2008 at about 12:45 hrs has found signs of repair at two places over the small intestine. He has seen perforation in the small intestine, presence of pus and peritonitis in the intestine.
2. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VI, Ranchi has held that the prosecution has proved the sequence of events in the night of 10.07.2008 the occurrence took place around 08:00 p.m. in the night, and Paya Oraon was found injured with a knife like weapon. The learned Judge has further found that the victim himself has stated before his wife and the investigating officer that Jaga Oraon assaulted him and the doctor who treated him first has categorically held that injury found on his person was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and, therefore, the accused was liable to be convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned trial Judge has held thus;
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710
Raja Gaunder v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 15 SCC 98
Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 245
Gurmail Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 185
State of UP v. Indrajeet @ Sukhatha (2000) 7 SCC 249
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory
Selvam v. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 402
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.