RUBEN ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.1.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2001, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case in short is that PW-8 Gandhur Uraon lodged Fardbeyan on 9.5.2000 at about 12.15 hours to the effect that on previous day i.e. 8.5.2000 Phul Mati Devi (PW-6) and his younger brother (deceased) were at home. When informant returned at about 7 p.m., PW-6 told him that about 6 p.m., there was quarrel between the appellant who happens to be nephew of the informant and the deceased on account of partition of cattle and land on which the appellant wanted to inflict Chhura blow. When the deceased tried to escape, he fell in the field. Then appellant inflicted dagger injuries on his stomach, chest and eye brow and fled away. When PW-6 raised hulla, Gondla Uraon (PW-4), Mannu Uraon (PW-2) and Kali Oraon (not examined) reached there. The informant, his wife and villagers went to the field and found Somar Oraon (since deceased) lying dead.

(2.) The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. PW-1 is the Investigating Officer,. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 7 have been declared hostile. PW-5 is the Doctor. P.W. 8 is the informant. P.W. 9 is a formal witness.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that PW-6 has been projected as eye witness, but she is not. The Doctor found four incised wounds caused by dagger on the deceased. PW-6, on whose information, the Fardbeyan was lodged by PW-8, did not narrate the story said to have been given by her to the informant in the F.I.R., namely, that there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased and then the appellant wanted to inflict dagger blow where upon the deceased fled away and the appellant chased him and when the deceased fell on the ground, the appellant inflicted several dagger blows on him. It further appears that in the F.I.R., it was said that the quarrel took place in the house, but PW-6 said that when the deceased was returning after grazing cattle, the appellant assaulted him. She further said that before she reached the appellant assaulted the deceased. Then in cross-examination she said that she reached on hulla of the deceased where she saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. The informant PW-8 also changed the story narrated by him in the F.I.R. in his evidence. He did not say that PW-8 said her about quarrel etc. between the appellant and the deceased. He lastly submitted that the appellant is in jail for about 12 years.