CRIMINAL APPEAL 26 of 1999 on 24 August 2002

1. Ratan Oriya, son of Lamba Oriya aged about 35 years

2. Boita Oriya, son of Barjo Oriya aged about 27 yearsBoth are resident of village-Jiray, P.S. Bandhgaown, District-.... .... …. Both are resident of village-Jiray, P.S. Bandhgaown, District-.... .... …. Singhbhum(west) Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Suman Kr. Ghosh, Amicus Curiae For the Resp. State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For the Resp. State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.

------

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVAJUDGMENT

------

CAV On 17/09/2025 Pronounce On 14 /10/2025

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the State. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the State.

2. Originally the instant appeal was preferred by 6 appellants, out of them, appellant No.1- Lamba Oriya, appellant No.2- Barunda Oriya, appellant No.3-Pawala Oriya and appellant No.5- Fagu Oriya have died and their appeal have been abated out of them, appellant No.1- Lamba Oriya, appellant No.2- Barunda Oriya, appellant No.3-Pawala Oriya and appellant No.5- Fagu Oriya have died and their appeal have been abated

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) vide order dated 23.07.2025. The names of surviving appellants, namely, Ratan Oriya and Boita Oriya have been renumbered and the appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants.

3. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 24.08.2002 passed by learned 3[rd] Additional Sessions Judge, Chiabasa Singhbhum (west) in S.T. No.15 of 2000 arising out of Bandgaon P.S. Case No.26 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. Case No.138 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 24.08.2002 passed by learned 3[rd] Additional Sessions Judge, Chiabasa Singhbhum (west) in S.T. No.15 of 2000 arising out of Bandgaon P.S. Case No.26 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. Case No.138 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

Factual Matrix:-

4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the night of 17.07.1999 at about 8:00 pm, the informant’s father after taking dinner went to sleep at machan situated nearby the house and the informant along with his wife also went to sleep in his house. It is further alleged that on 18.07.1999 at about 7:00 am, when the informant wake up and went towards machan then saw his father was killed by giving tangi blow on his head by some unknown miscreants. It is further alleged of 17.07.1999 at about 8:00 pm, the informant’s father after taking dinner went to sleep at machan situated nearby the house and the informant along with his wife also went to sleep in his house. It is further alleged that on 18.07.1999 at about 7:00 am, when the informant wake up and went towards machan then saw his father was killed by giving tangi blow on his head by some unknown miscreants. It is further alleged

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) that the informant has not expressed enmity with any of the villagers and also admitted that no one has seen committing the murder of his father. It is further alleged that the informant informed about the occurrence to Village Munda, since the police station situated at a great distance.

The above statement of informant, Berga Oreya was recorded by S.I. Jawahar Pandey(P.W.7) and on the basis of which, Bandgaon P.S. Case No.26 of 1999 was registered for the offence under section 302 of IPC against unknown miscreants. The names of appellants have been surfaced during investigation and they have been charge-sheeted for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.15 of 2000 was registered. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

5. In course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, namely:- by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Puni Oreya (wife of informant)

P.W.2- Berga Oreya(informant)

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)

P.W.3-Bul Oreya

P.W.4-Raghu Nath Oreya

P.W.5-Laxman Oreya

P.W.6-Narayan Singh Bodra

P.W.7- S.I. Jawahar Pandey

P.W.8-Devendra Tiwary

P.W.9- Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta

6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced:- documentary evidence has also been adduced:- Ext. 1- Signature of Bersa Oreya in fardbayan Ext.1/1- Signature of Raghunath Oreya in inquest report and report and Ext.1/2- Signature of Birsa Munda in inquest report.

Ext.2- Entire Fardbayan

Ext.3- Seizure list

Ext.4- Inquest report

Ext.5- Formal FIR

Ext.6- Post-mortem report

Ext.7. C.C of charge-sheet of S.T. No.363 of 1999

7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is totally denial from the occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. adduced by the defence. The case of defence is totally denial from the occurrence and false implication due to land dispute.

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) 8.Learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, recorded findings about the guilt of the appellants and sentenced them as stated above.

:- Submission on behalf of the Appellants

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants and there was specific claim of the informant (P.W.2) that he has no dispute or any enmity with any villagers and also admits that no one has seen the occurrence. In course of investigation, the informant’s wife, Puni Oreya(P.W.1) projected herself as an eye-witness of the occurrence and has given a vivid description how the deceased was assaulted by appellants and died. It is quite strange that FIR was lodged after two days of occurrence but the husband of Puni Oreya(informant) has whispered nothing about any accused persons rather lodged the FIR against unknown persons. Learned trial court has committed serious error of law in believing the testimony of P.W.1, who claims to have informed her husband (informant) about the occurrence of assault by the appellants to her father-in-law at the time of incident itself but the informant has taken no action at all and has also not taken step to inform the same

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) to Village Munda. It cannot be believed that a son, after knowing about the assailants of his father, will spare them going unpunished. It is further submitted that except the testimony of P.W.1, not a single witness examined by the prosecution has supported the prosecution story as regards the involvement of the appellants for the alleged offence of murder. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is based upon un-creditworthy evidence of P.W.1, which is fit to be set aside. The appellants deserve acquittal from the charges leveled against them.

:- Submission on behalf of State

10. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. for the State refuting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1, who is sole eye-witness and she has vividly described the happening of incident, which was seen by her. There is no substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. arguments of learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1, who is sole eye-witness and she has vividly described the happening of incident, which was seen by her. There is no substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

11. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law and based beyond whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law and based beyond

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) the weight of evidence available on record, which requires any interference in this appeal?”

:- Analysis, Reasons and Decision

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

13. It appears that out of 9 witness examined in this case, only P.W.1, Puni Oreya and P.W.2, Besra Oreya(informant) are prime witnesses of facts, the other witnesses are hearsay witnesses from P.W.1 and P.W.2. Therefore, the testimony of prime witnesses requires to be discussed at first. P.W.1, Puni Oreya and P.W.2, Besra Oreya(informant) are prime witnesses of facts, the other witnesses are hearsay witnesses from P.W.1 and P.W.2. Therefore, the testimony of prime witnesses requires to be discussed at first.

P.W.1-Punii Oreya is the wife of the informant. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence in the night after taking dinner, she was weaving mat towards eastern door of her house and her husband was in the room. She has further deposed that her father-in-law Bir Singh Oreya was sleeping towards western door in a room. Meanwhile, she heard some noise of her father-in-law and went towards his room lighting a torch and saw Lomba Oreya and Boeta Oreya had caught hold of her father-in-law and Pawala Oreya, Basanda Oreya and Fagu Oreya and Ratan Oreya were

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) assaulting on his head by balua. She went inside the room of her husband and woke up him and told that some miscreants are assaulting to his father and also suggested her husband to flee away towards forest area otherwise, they will also be killed, then this witness along with her husband fled away towards forest area. From the forest area, she informed to Village Munda, namely, Budhu Munda and his two sons, Bul Oreya and Birsa Oreya and disclosed that her father-in-law has been killed by the accused persons. She also disclosed about the incident to Laxman Oreya and Ragunath Oreya.

In her cross-examination, she specifically admits that the incident is of Saturday night and she along with herhusband informed to police station about the occurrence onMonday. She also admits that at the time of lodging report atpolice station neither she nor her husband have disclosed thename of any accused persons. She also admits that there wasland dispute and scuffle with the accused persons since sixmonths prior to the occurrence.

P.W.2-Berga Oreya is the informant of this case and the son of deceased. According to him, on Saturday, he was sleeping in his room then his wife (P.W.1) woke up him and told that Pawala Oreya, Basanda Oreya, Lonwa Oreya, Fagu

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) Oreya, Ratan Oreya and Boyata Oreya have killed his father. She also told that we should flee away towards forest area otherwise they will kill us. Thereafter, this witness along with his wife went towards forest area. In the morning, he went to the house of Budhu Munda and informed about the occurrence and his two sons, Birsa Oreya and Bul Oreya. He has further deposed that on Saturday, the Village Munda called upon all the six accused persons then they started scuffling and threatening to kill the informant and his family memers, if any case is instituted against them. Thereafter, on Monday, thiswitness along with his wife went to the police station and. lodged this case In his cross-examination, he has specifically admittedthat he has not seen any person while assaulting his father. Hefled away towards forest area in the dark night. He also admitsthat there was a land dispute from six months prior to theoccurrence. He has denied the suggestion of defence that due to land dispute, he has falsely implicated the accused persons in this case.

P.W.3-Bul Oreya is the son of Budhu Munda.

According to his evidence, Puni Oreya (P.W.1) and Berga Oreya(P.W.2) came to his house and told that while she was

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) weaving mat, she heard some noise from outside where her father-in-law was sleeping and when she approached there, she saw that all the accused persons, six in numbers, were assaulting her father-in-law by tangi. Thereafter, this witness went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased, Bir Singh Oreya under pool of blood. The accused persons were called upon to confess their guilt.

P.W.4-Raghu Oreya is a witness of inquest report and he has proved the signature along with signature of one Birsa Munda on the inquest report, which is marked as Exts.1/1 and 1/2. There is nothing in his evidence about the occurrence.

P.W.5- Laxman Oreya is also a hearsay witness and came to know about the murder of the deceased from the son of Budhu Munda, namely Bul Oreya and Birsa Oreya. He has also seen the dead body of the deceased lying in the injured condition at his house under pool of blood.

P.W.6- Narayan Singh Bodra is a village Manki and he is also a hearsay witness of the occurrence from Bul Munda, Jogo Hembram and Sabaul Oreya, who informed him on 18.07.1999 at about 9:30 am that Bir Singh Oreya has been murdered by Pawala Oreya, Lomba Oreya, Fagu Oreya, Ratan Oreya, Bokta Oreya and one more whose name has not been

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) recalled by this witness. He went to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body. He further admits that all the accused persons were called upon but they were threatening to kill the informant and his family member, if the case is instituted.

P.W.7- S.I. Jawahar Pandey is a partial Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 19.11.1999 at about 7:30 am, he got message through rumor that in villageJikahi, one person has been murdered. Thereafter, he entered Sanaha No.307 dated 19.07.1999 and proceeded to the village Jikahi at the house of the informant Berga Oreya. He recorded his fardbayan (Ext.1.) He has also inspected the place of occurrence and seized bloodstained soil from there and prepared the seizure list(Ext.3) in presence of witnesses. He prepared inquest report of the deceased (Ext.4). He has recorded the statement of witnesses, Puni Oreya, Berga Oreya, Bul Oreya, Pesra Budhwa Oreya, Raghunath Oreya, Raghunandan Oreya, Kalipado Gorai, Jogo Hembram and Naryan Singh. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Thereafter, he handed over the further charge of Investigation to S.I. Devendra Nath Tripathi on 19.12.1999. Hefurther states that after registration of FIR, he interrogated the

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)

witnesses but none has disclosed the name of any accusedpersons.

P.W.8- S.I. Devendra Tiwari has simply submitted charge-sheet on the basis of previous investigation.

P.W.9-Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Bir Singh Oreya and found following injuries:- Ante-mortem injury:-

(i) incised wound 6” x 4”x 3” involving drain mass situated transversally on the left parietal bone situated transversally on the left parietal bone On dissection:-

(i) Head- as described above

(ii) Thorax-Thoracic cage was intact lungs intact. Heart chambers contained some amount of blood Heart chambers contained some amount of blood

(iii) Abdomen-Stomach contained watery fluid, liver, spleen and kidney were intact. spleen and kidney were intact.

Opinion:Cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to above injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon.

This witness has proved his signature on post-mortem report marked as Ext.6.

14. From the aforesaid discussion of testimony of purported eye- witnesses, P.W.1, Puni Oreya and P.W.2, Berga Oreya, we find that it is crystal clear that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 has

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) disclosed the name of assailants of the deceased in their respective statements made before the police and at the time of lodging FIR. Although, admittedly more than 48 hours have elapsed since the happening of occurrence. P.W.2, Berga Oreya has also admitted that his wife told him that accused persons have killed his father but had not informed at the time of commission of the offence. He also admits that he has not seen the occurrence of assault caused by any of the miscreants. Similarly other witnesses of the facts, who are admittedly hearsay witnesses have also not informed to police about the murder of the deceased caused by the present appellants. It is obvious from the evidence of P.W.7, S.I. Jawahar Pandey(I.O.) that he got information about the occurrence through rumor on 19.07.1999 in the morning at about 7:30 am. Therefore, neither the informant nor his wife nor any other villagers to whom the incident was disclosed have informed the occurrence at police station. Therefore, extrajudicial confession of the accused persons before the Village Munda does not hold much water. The land dispute with the appellants is alsoadmitted by the informant and his wife.

15. It appears that learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who have

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB) materially improved their version and projected themselves as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Although, nothing was told in their statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer. There is no other connecting evidence leading towards the guilt of the appellant. The whole approach of learned trial court is based upon conjecture and surmises and giving undue weightage to the testimony of P.W.1, who appears to be absolutely unreliable witness.

16. Having apprised with the ocular testimony of the witnesses as discussed above, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law while recording the guilt of the appellants without any cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned 3[rd] Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, Singhbhum (West) in S.T. No.15 of 2000. discussed above, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law while recording the guilt of the appellants without any cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned 3[rd] Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, Singhbhum (West) in S.T. No.15 of 2000.

17. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is, hereby set aside and this allowed. and sentence of the appellants is, hereby set aside and this allowed. appeal is

18. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.

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

(2025:JHHC:31703-DB)

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

21. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to process fees of Rs.7,500/-(Rs. Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) to Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. by Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to process fees of Rs.7,500/-(Rs. Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) to Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

22. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order be served to Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee Amicus Curiae. to Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee Amicus Curiae. for processing the fees to learned (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 14/10/2025 Pappu/- N.A.F.R.