KINU ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -2, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 2001 / Supplementary Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2003, convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302 IPC and R.I. for three years for the offence under section 201 IPC. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Tuggu Oraon (PW-7) lodged fardbeyan on 22.05.2000 at about 8.45 AM in -presence of his brother Basudeo Ram (PW-2) that in the previous night at 11.00 PM, on hearing rumor of fire, he reached at the house of his sister's daughter (deceased) and found her dead. The villagers were trying to extinguish the fire by throwing water from the roof of the house. The deceased was married with the appellant-Kinu Oraon about four years back. After sometime, her husband-Kinu Oraon (appellant), her Bhaisur and Gotni (appellants-Anand Oraon and Hemu Oraon) and her father-in-law started torturing her as she could not bear child. She never slept in the room in which she was found dead. Appellants did not try to save the deceased. As other articles in the room were not burnt, it was suspected that the appellants have killed the deceased projecting accidental death by fire.

(2.) The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PW-1 is the uncle of the deceased named in the fardbeyan and he was present at the time of recording fardbeyan. PW-2 is the father of the deceased. PW-3 is an independent witness. PWs - 4 & 5 have been declared hostile. PW-6 is another uncle of the deceased. PW-7 is the informant. PW-8 is the doctor who assisted the doctor who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and proved the postmortem report. PW-9 is an independent witness- PW-10 is a formal witness. PW-11 has been tendered for cross-examination and PW-11 is chaukidar of the village.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on various grounds and submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submitted that due to non-examination of the investigating officer, the case of the appellants has been seriously prejudiced. He lastly submitted that the appellants-Kinu Oraon and Anand Oraon are in jail for the last 12 years and the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt.