SUKHA RAM ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.05.1996 and order of sentence dated 15.05.1996 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1998, holding all the appellants guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, as it appears from the F.I.R lodged by Jattu Oraon on 108.1986 at 6.30 a.m., is that his son-in-law Rameshwar Oraon along with his wife Birsai Oraon and children visited his house in the evening at about 3 p.m. and stayed in the night. On the next day, Rameshwar Oroan was returning to his village after taking meals at. about 3.30 p.m., and had covered only some distance from the house, when all of a sudden co-villagers Sukhram Oraon, Ram Oraon and Birsai Oraon assaulted him by bhujali for causing his death, whereupon his son-in-law Rameshwar Oraon started running to save his life and entered into the house of Choutha Oraon, but all the three accused persons also entered into the house of Choutha Oraon and assaulted causing serious injuries on his body, which resulted in his death. This incident was also seen by his nephew-Sukra Oraon and sister's daughter-Salo Orain. Choutha Oraon, who was returning with his cattle after grazing them, also saw the three accused persons fleeing away from his house with bloodstained bhujali. The informant was working in his field, when his Bhagina-Mangru Oraon informed him about the incident, whereupon he came and saw the dead body of Rameshwar Oraon in the pool of blood in the veranda of Choutha Oraon. He claimed that accused persons had caused death of his son-in-law Rameshwar Oraon whose dead body was lying at dhaba (veranda). Accordingly, Ghaghra (Gumla) P.S. Case No. 59 of 1987 corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 1987 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and investigation were taken up. After investigation, Police submitted the charge-sheet. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and ultimately the case was committed to the Court of Session, which was numbered as S.T. No. 9 of 1988.

(3.) The prosecution altogether examined twelve witnesses but no witness was examined on behalf of defence.