Jharkhand High Court
Bannu Nagesia @ Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2002 and sentence
dated 28.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast
Track-II, Gumla in Session Trial No.270 of 1993]
------
1. Bannu Nagesia @ Oraon, son of Late Budhu Nagesia
2. Jatru Oraon, son of late Mahto Oraon
3. Mani Oraon, son of Sri Chhedna Oraon
4.Bhayo Oraon, son of late Bouwa Oraon
5.Jethu Nagesia @ Jethu Oraon, son of late Dasai Nagesia
6. Bholu Oraon, son of Sri Ghura Oraon
All residents of village-Alangkera, Oraon Toli, P.O.-Palkot,
District-Gumla .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant s : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, Advocate
Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate
Ms. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
——
CAV On 12/08/2025 Pronounce On 25 /08 /2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 27.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 28.11.2002 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track-II, Gumla in
Session Trial No.270 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the
appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Section
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
1
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo R.I. of life.
2. The instant appeal was originally preferred by eight appellants
out of them, appellant No.3, Chhedna Oraon and appellant
No.6, Aghnu Oraon died during pendency of this appeal and
their appeal has been abated vide order dated 21.03.2025.
3. We have heard the argument of Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato,
learned counsel appearing for the surviving appellants and
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. appearing for the State.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant,
Nirmal Singh lodged a report on 21.03.1993 at about 9 PM at
Palkot Police Station stating inter alia that at about 6 PM, the
informant heard hulla coming from Oraon Toli and saw that
Paltan Singh and Bauwa Oraon were quarreling, meanwhile
Bhullu Oraon, Jatru Oraon, Bauwa Oraon and Patu Oraon
came there and caught hold of Paltan Singh and Mani Oraon
and Chedna Oraon (since deceased) assaulted Paltan Singh by
lathi due to which Paltan Singh fell down. Thereafter, Aghnu
Oraon and Geja Oraon threw stones on the head of Paltan
Singh. Ballu Nagesia and Jethu Nagesia assaulted on the head
of informant by means of lathi on other parts of body. Paltan
Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the above
occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence was that Paltan
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
2
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
Singh used to levy rice from the residents of Oraon Toli and
with a view to get rid of him, the occurrence took place.
On the basis of above fardbayan of the informant,
Palkot P.S. Case No.19 of 1993 was registered for the offences
under sections 147, 148, 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code.
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against them for the offences under sections 147, 148, 302 and
323 of Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned trial court took cognizance of the offences and
committed the case to the court of Sessions where S.T. No. 270
of 1993 was registered. During course of trial, accused Bauwa
Oraon and Patu Oraon died while the case of Geja Oraon was
split up for trial under Juvenile Justice Act. Charges were
framed against them on 09.05.1995. The accused persons did
not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of
trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has
been passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.
6. In course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses have been examined
by the prosecution namely:-
P.W.1 Indra Nath Singh
P.W.2- Smt. Shanti Devi (wife of deceased, Paltan
Singh)
P.W.3-Saraswati Devi
P.W.4-Baleshwar Singh
P.W.5-Nirmal Singh (Informant)
P.W.6-Dr. A.D.N. Prasad
P.W.7-Parsuram Singh (Formal Witness)
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
3
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DBApart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidences have also been adduced by the
prosecution, which are as under:-
Ext.-1 to 1/1- Signature of Indra Nath Singh and
Baleshwar Singh on inquest report.
Ext.1/2 to 1/3-signature of Indra Nath Singh and
Baleshwar Singh over the seizure list.
Ext.1/4- Signature of Indra Nath Singh on F.I.R. as a
witness.
Ext.1/5-Signature of Baleshwar Singh on FIR.
Ext.1/6-Signature of Nirmal Singh on FIR.
Ext.2-Post-mortem report of the deceased.
Ext.3-F.I.R.
Ext.4-Seizure list of two stones and blood stained soil.
Ext.5–Inquest report.
7. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from the
occurrence and false implication. No oral witness has been
examined by the defence rather documentary evidence as
Ext.A, certified copy of judgment in G.R. Case No.217 of 1993
dated 19.10.2001 (State Vs. Geja Oraon) and Ext. B, certified
copy of deposition of Smt. Shanti Devi in G.R. Case No.217 of
1993 recorded on 09.09.1996 has been adduced.
8. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the oral testimony of
witnesses examined by the prosecution recorded findings that
informant (P.W.5), the wife of the deceased (P.W.2) and aunt of
deceased (P.W.3) have consistently stated that they have seen
the occurrence while accused persons were assaulting to
Paltan Singh, due to which he died. It was further held that
P.W.4 is an independent witness of the occurrence, who has
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
4
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
also corroborated the prosecution story and saw the dead body
lying at the house of the Patu Oraon where murder was
committed.
P.W.1 and P.W.4, witnesses of seizure list and inquest
report have also supported the prosecution case which further
finds corroboration from post-mortem report of the deceased,
which was proved by the P.W.6.
It was further observed that although there are some
minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of
witnesses but that is not sufficient to discard the testimony of
witnesses and arrived at definite conclusion that the
prosecution has proved the charges under sections 302 r/w 34
of IPC against all the accused persons and acquitted them from
charge under section 148 of IPC. The appellants are sentenced
to undergo for imprisonment of life as stated above.
Submission of learned counsel for appellants
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was
specific allegation against Chedna Oraon and Aghnu Oraon
for assaulting the deceased by lathi and stones. There are
general and omnibus allegations against other appellants and
their presence and participation in the alleged occurrence has
also not been proved consistently by the witnesses alleged to
be eye-witnesses of this case. It is further submitted that the
testimony of eye-witnesses relied upon by the learned trial
court suffers from material exaggeration and improvements
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
5
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
during trial. The informant has also given improved story
about the manner and place of occurrence. The seized
materials like bloodstained soil and two boulders have not
been produced during trial as material exhibit nor the same
was sent to FSL for chemical examination. Admittedly, two
stones alleged to be seized in this case are not found to be
bloodstained.
It is further submitted that the main appellants against
whom there is direct allegation of assaulting by lathi and
stones have been died during pendency of this appeal and no
specific role has been attributed against other appellants and
their conviction and sentence for the offence under section 302
read with section 34 of IPC is absolutely not warranted under
law. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this
case causing great prejudice to the defence in eliciting the
material contradictions and improvements appearing in the
evidence of alleged eye-witnesses. No common intention of all
the appellants has been mentioned in the impugned judgment
and no motive for the occurrence has been attributed to these
appellants. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the
appellants is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal.
Submission of learned counsel for State
10. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. appearing
for the State controverted the aforesaid points of argument
raised on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that the
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
6
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated
the evidence available on record as well as the doctor, who has
conducted post-mortem clearly proved the charges levelled
against the appellants. Mere, non-examination of Investigating
Officer of the case causes no prejudice to the defence in the
instant case. Therefore, there is no merits in this appeal and no
substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the
appellants. Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of merits and fit
to be dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision
11. We have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of
the appellants in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the
respective parties.
12. It appears that out of 7 witnesses examined in this case;
P.W.7-Parshuram Singh is a formal witness, who is an
advocate clerk and proved formal FIR, seizure list and inquest
report marked as Exts.3, 4 and 5 respectively.
P.W.6-Dr. D.N. Prasad has conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased, Paltan Singh aged about 35 years
and found following injuries:-
Rigor mortis present in the four limbs:
i) One lacerated injury on right side of forehead with
commuted fracture of skull and extensive laceration of
brain matter with the large amount of dried blood all
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
7
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DBover the face, neck, hairs post thoracic wall etc., size 3″
x 1 ½” x 2″.
ii) Lacerated injuries 1 ½” above eyebrow with fracture
of skull and laceration of brain matter size 2″ x 1″ x 2″.
iii) Lacerated injuries 1″ below the right eye size 1″ x
1″ x 2″ with fracture of right zygomatic bone
iv) Commuted compound fracture of the mandible on
right side with multiple teeth broken and lacerated cut
injuries in both angles of the mouth.
v) Multiple ecchymosis on the interior chest wall 1″
wide and varying in length from 6″ x 10″ in lengths.
vi) Multiple ecchymosis on the left shoulder and post
thoracic wall left side 1″ wide of variable lengths.
vii) Fracture of external and multiple ribs on both sides
of chest.
Cause of death-Hemorrhage and shock due to injury
Nos. i, ii and iii singly or combined together.
All injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Time elapsed
since death within 24 hours. The post-mortem report is
marked as Ext.2.
P.W.4-Baleshwar Singh is also a witness of the seizure
list, inquest report and also proved his signature on FIR but
nothing has been stated about the occurrence. He has simply
heard about murder of Paltan Singh and went near the house
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
8
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
of Patu Oraon where he saw the dead body of Paltan Singh
and nothing else.
P.W.1-Indra Nath Singh is also hearsay witness about
the occurrence but he has proved his signature on inquest
report and seizure list as well as on fardbayan of Nirmal Singh.
13. The prosecution case rests upon the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3
and P.W.5, whose testimony requires detailed discussion:-
P.W.2, Smt. Shanti Devi is the wife of deceased, Paltan
Singh. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence in
the evening, she was at her home and her husband had gone to
bring vegetable. She heard some hulla coming from the house
of Patu Oraon then she along with Sarswati Devi went there
where she saw that Mani Oraon, Chedna Oraon, Jatru Oraon,
Patu Oraon, Bauwa Oraon, Bhao Oraon, Geja Oraon, Bullu
Oraon, Aghnu Oraon, Ballu Nagesia and Jethu Nagesia were
standing with arm. Mani Oraon was armed with stone and
sabal, Khedna Oraon with lathi, Jatru Oraon with lathi, Geja
Oraon with stone, Aghnu Oraon with stone and others were
holding her husband. She has specifically stated that Mani
Oraon has given sabal blows on the head of her husband and
again with stones due to which her husband fell down then
Geja Oran assaulted by stones on chest, Aghnu Oraon
assaulted by stone on face, Khedna Oraon and Jatra Oraon
assaulted by lathi, Bullu, Bhado and Jethu were catching hold
of her husband. The defence has drawn her attention towards
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
9
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DBstatement before the police recorded under section 161 of
C.P.C wherein she has not stated about the role of every
accused person in assaulting her husband.
P.W.3- Sarswati Devi is aunt of the deceased, she was
also at her home at the time of occurrence and after hearing
hulla, she along with P.W.2 went to place of occurrence.
According to her evidence, she saw that Jatru Oraon, Bhulu
Oraon and Chedna Oraon were assaulting Paltan Singh with
lahti, Mani Oraon assaulted by sabal on head of the deceased,
Paltan Singh and Geja Oraon gave stone blows, Ballu Nagesia
by lathi, Patu, Jethu and Bhau were holding the deceased. She
further states that when the villagers assembled, the accused
persons fled away. The attention of this witness has also been
drawn towards her statement recorded under section 161 of
C.P.C and she has also not stated about specific role of the
accused persons before the police.
P.W.5 Nirmal Singh is the Informant-cum-Uncle of the
deceased. This witness has also gone to the place of occurrence
after hearing hulla and his wife and daughter-in-law had also
followed him. According to his evidence, he saw that Paltan
was being assaulted by Mani Oraon, Chedna Oraon, Jetna,
Jatru and Patu and besides this Aghnu, Jethu and other 6-8
accused persons were also present. He has assigned specific
role of Mani Oraon having iron rod and other accused,
Chedna, Jethu and Aghnu were armed with lathi. Mani has
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
10
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DBfurther assaulted by stone on the head of Paltan Singh
thereafter all the accused persons fled away and his nephew
died on spot. This witness was not cross-examined after
adjournment for further cross-examination.
14. It appears that P.W.5 Nirmal Singh is the main witness of the
occurrence, who is an eye-witness and lodged the FIR also.
15. From perusal of FIR as discussed above, there is simple
assertion about use of lathi by Mani Oraon and Chedna Oraon,
use of stone against Aghnu Oraon and Geja Oraon. The use of
sabal and iron rod as projected in the evidence of these
eyewitnesses appears to be material improvement in their
earlier version. Moreover, no such injuries caused by sabal or
iron rod have been opined out in post-mortem report of the
deceased. The injuries found on the body of the deceased is
commuted fracture on head which might be caused by heavy
stone and there is specific allegation against Aghnu Oraon and
Geju Oraon for causing smash injury by stones. Chedna Oraon
and Aghnu Oraon have been died and Geja Oraon was
juvenile at the time of occurrence whose case was inquired into
by Juvenile Justice Board. It further appears that there are
general and omnibus allegations against the appellants, Bannu
Oraon, Jatru Oraon, Mani Oraon, Bhayo Oraon, Jethu Nagesia
and Bholu Oraon. The eye-witnesses have not been able to
prove their role in the alleged occurrence. Moreover, the
appellants have been acquitted from charges under section 148
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
11
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove any
unlawful assembly.
16. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we find that no
specific role has been attributed against the present alive
appellants in causing murder of the deceased, Paltan Singh.
The relative eye-witnesses alone have proved prosecution case
and their testimony suffers from material contradictions and
improvements as regards manner of occurrence and the role of
every accused person along with their respective weapons.
Therefore, non-examination of Investigating Officer is also
seriously prejudicial to the defence of the appellants.
Accordingly, we find and hold that the role of alive appellants
in the alleged occurrence is absolutely doubtful and they
deserve benefit of doubt. Hence, impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence of the appellants is liable to
be set aside
17. Accordingly, judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2002 and
sentence dated 28.11.2002 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge Fast Track-II, Gumla in Session Trial No.270 of
1993 is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
18. The above appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled
against them and set at liberty forthwith.
19. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from
liability of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged.
20. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
12
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25107-DB
21. Let the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records
be sent back for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 25 /08 /2025
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
Cr. A (D.B.) No.105 of 2003
13
[ad_1]
Source link