IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan, JJ.
Jogi Oraon @ Jogindra Oraon and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 440 of 2001
Decided On : 03-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2001 (sentence passed on 29.09.2001) passed by Shri Prashant Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fard beyan of Kunka Baraik who has stated that on 21.11.1997 he had come to Dumartoli and was staying with his in-law’s family for the last one week. The informant’s elder brother-in-law namely, Narain Baraik had 1.14 acres of land at Kumhar More and on that land, he was constructing a house under Indira Awaas Yojna. The informant was looking after the construction work along with his brother-in-law. It is alleged that in the night of 20.11.1997, while the informant was sleeping along with his brother-in-law, the accused persons variously armed had come and after abusing the brother-in-law of the informant had started assaulting him with axe, bhujali, farsa and lathi, as a result of which the brother-in-law of the informant became unconscious and when he tried to rescue him, he was also threatened by the accused persons. After committing the assault, the accused persons had left the place of occurrence. The informant thereafter intimated about the incident to Ram Lakhan Baraik who had arrived with Hira Nath Baraik and the villagers had also arrived. The injured Narain Baraik was referred to Sisai Referral Hospital, where in course of treatment, he died. It has been alleged that the ancestors of Jogi alias Jogindra Oraon (appellant no. 1) had donated 1.14 acres of land in Bhudan which was later on settled with the deceased Narain Baraik upon which he was constructing a house and on account of the same, there was a land dispute which resulted in the incident.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sisai P. S. Case No. 122 of 1997 was instituted against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. After 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. 126 of 1998. Charge was framed under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in course of trial has examined 6 witnesses in support of its case.
6. P.W. 1 – Hiranath Baraik did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.
7. P.W. 2 – Ram Lakhan Baraik has stated that on the date of the incident, he was in his house, when his brother-in-law Kunka Baraik had come late at night and informed him that his elder brother-in-law Narain Baraik has been assaulted. On this information, he had informed the villagers and with 8-10 persons he had reached the place of occurrence, but when Narain Baraik could not be found, they went to Sisai Police Station. In the police station, the fard beyan of his brother-in- law was recorded and the police had come in the night and in the morning near the field his elder brother was found lying in an injured condition. He was in his senses and was taken by the villagers to Sisai Hospital where he died. He has proved his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit 2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his brother Narain Baraik used to stay at Barbatoli as a Ghar-jamai.
8. P.W. 3 – Kunka Baraik is the informant and the sole eye-witness of the occurrence. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, it was around 11:00 P.M. and he was sleeping in Mahrapara in the house of Matukdhari Master and Narain Baraik was sleeping outside the house when the accused persons had come variously armed and started committing assault upon Narain
The conviction based on inconsistent eye-witness testimony was overturned, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
Eyewitness testimony, even with contradictions, can substantiate murder convictions when corroborated by forensic evidence showing the brutal nature of the crime.
The court confirmed that eyewitness testimonies, despite procedural lapses in FIR registration, sufficiently proved the common intention of the accused in a joint assault leading to conviction under ....
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC, emphasizing the impulsive nature of the assault and the adequacy of the time already served as pu....
Conviction cannot stand when significant doubts arise due to contradictory testimonies and acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence, emphasizing the principle of parity in criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of familial relationship, lack of criminal antecedents, and the prolonged duration of the criminal prosecution in deciding the ap....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Conviction set aside - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of witnesses do not energise prosecution case and falsity of allegations levelled against appellants lie threadba....
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.