Jaleshwar Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma and learned A.P.P.-Mr. Bishambhar Shastri.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 08.04.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. No. 15 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304(I) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the night of 30.10.2007, at about 09:00 pm, the son-in-law of the informant Chouthi Devi came to her house and tried to carry away the kerosene oil for irrigation purposes, upon this, the husband of the informant namely Jitendra Oraon (since deceased) objected and suggested to come in the morning to take the kerosene oil and this act of husband of the informant enraged the son-in-law of the informant who picked up Taba (Pan) and started assaulting Jitendra Oraon at his face. The informant went outside the house and raised alarm for help and again returned inside and found that her son-in-law was throttling her husband. The informant again went outside raising alarm for help on which her son-in-law closed the door from inside and after a while, when the co-villagers came to rescue, the son-in-law suddenly opened the door and fled away and when they entered into the house, found her husband Jitendra Oraon lying dead on the Chowki.

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Senha P.S. Case No. 115 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC against the sole accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. No. 15 of 2008 was registered and charges were framed.

In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

Learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, found the appellant guilty for the offence and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment has contended that the learned trial Court has failed to consider that no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution and the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of sole eye witness i.e. informant of this case who is itself not an eye witness as per her own statement. It has also been submitted that the appellant had no intention to kill his own father-in-law and the occurrence took place due to an accident when the father-in-law fell down on Chowki during scuffle between them and sustained injuries resulting in his death due to his old age.

In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for about one year and six months out of eight years maximum imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 304(I) of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence is of the year 2007 and since then, the appellant is suffering from the agony of the trial, therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt, hence a lenient view may be taken to meet the ends of justice in this case.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant committing murder of his own father-in-law and the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Learned A.P.P. is also fair enough to state that the appellant has remained in custody for one year six months and have no objection if the Court takes a lenient view in the matter of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court.

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

After perusal of evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidence including the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is absolutely unnatural death caused by the present appellant using a Taba (Pan) to his own father-in-law who died sustaining the injuries and the learned trial court after considering the overall aspects of the case has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304(I) of the I.P.C. which requires no interference in this appeal.

So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the appellant has already undergone one year six months custody during investigation, trial and post-conviction. The occurrence is of the year 2007 and since then, almost two decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial. It has also come on record that there is no other criminal background of the appellant and he has maintained his life in mainstream without indulging in any other criminal activities. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him.

Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him.

In result, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.