IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Birsoo Oraon, son of Bandhan Oraon – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.381 of 2003
Decided on : 23-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and case history of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. initial factual matrix of the criminal incident and investigation history. (Para 4) |
| 3. parties' arguments regarding liability under section 34 and classification of the offense. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. appraisal and evaluation of prosecution and defense evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. limitation of section 34 ipc application due to lack of established common intention. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. legal standard for reducing murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. determination of sentencing and the final order of the court. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Originally this appeal was preferred by 7 appellants, out of them, appellant No.1, Birsoo Oraon, son of Buda Oraon, appellant No.3, Somra Oraon, son of late Konda Oraon and Bandhan Oraon, son of late Konda Oraon have died and their appeal have been abated vide order dated 16.07.2025. The names of surviving appellants, namely, Birsoo Oraon, son of Bandhan Oraon, Aghnoo Oraon, son of late Konda Oraon, Mukund Oraon, son of Gigo Oraon and Lila Oraon, son of Gigo Oraon have been renumbered and the appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants.
3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.02.2003 and 05.02.2003 respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Civil Court, Gumla in S.T. No.357 of 1993 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of life for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 months for the offence under section 323/34 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 15.10.1992 at about 3:00 pm, the informant Harihar Oraon along with his cousin, Bahura Oraon and his brother-in-law, Mangra Oraon were sitting in the house of his uncle, Jitrai Oraon. Meanwhile, all the accused appellants, namely, Birsoo Oraon, Somra Oraon, Aghnu Oraon, Bandhan Oraon, Birsoo Oraon, S/o- Bandhan Oraon, Mukund Oraon and Lila Oraon armed with lathi came to the place of occurrence in search of Jitrai Oraon to kill him. Meanwhile, Mangra Oraon came out to interrogate about the matter from the accused persons, then they got enraged and started shouting and indiscriminately assaulted with lathi to Mangra Oraon. It is further alleged that when the informant and other inmates came out from the house and tried to save Mangra Oraon, they were also assaulted. It is further alleged that due to injuries caused to Mangra Oraon, he became unconscious and other family members also sustained injuries. The injured, Mangra Oraon was brought to the hospital and later on in course of treatment, he died.
On the basis of above fardbayan of the informant, Ghaghra P.S. Case No.99 of 1992 dated 15.10.1992 was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and after death of Mangra Oraon, Section 302 of IPC was also added. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against above seven named accused persons. The case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No.357 of 1993 was registered. Charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 307, 452 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. One of the accused persons, namely, Mohan Oraon was acquitted after conclusion of the trial and the present appellants have been held guilty and sentenced for the aforesaid offences.
Submission on behalf of the appellants
5. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned senior counsel
The judgment establishes that a concerted attack resulting in death, supported by credible eyewitness testimony, constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, regardles....
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
The court emphasized that mere presence without overt acts does not satisfy the requirement of common intention necessary for a conviction under Section 34 of the IPC.
The court determined that a single act in an altercation did not constitute murder, leading to a conviction of culpable homicide instead, emphasizing the necessity of intent and multiple injuries for....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the circumstances and intentio....
The lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
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.