Dismissed

Jhunu Oraon v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2017Cr.M.P./745/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand denied the leave to appeal against a Sessions Court's acquittal of accused persons charged with offences under IPC Sections 452, 366(A), 323, 509, and 34, finding the prosecution evidence inconsistent and riddled with unexplained delays and lack of independent corroboration.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal was denied.

Jhunu Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.745 of 2017

¶3

Jhunu Oraon

¶4

.... .... …. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Jogendra Oraon

¶8

Binod Oraon

¶9

4.Premjit Oraon

¶10

Ranjit Oraon

¶11

Baneshwar Oraon @ Baney Oraon

¶12

Rajendra Oraon @ Raju Oraon .... .... .... Opposite Parties

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P.Nos.2,3,5,6,& 7 : Mr. R.K.Singh, Advocate

¶15

15/06.09.2017 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶16

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in Sessions Trial Case No.301/2010 arising out of Raidih P.S. Case No.41 of 2010 (G.R. Case No.499 of 2010) whereby opposite party nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 452/366(A)/323/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The prosecution story as alleged in the complaint petition no.83 of 2010 filed on 31.04.2010 interalia asserts as follows:-

¶18

Complainant's daughter Kalawati Devi, aged about 15 years had gone for natural call on 2^nd April, 2010. As soon as she came back to her house Baney Oraon entered and started outraging her modesty. He was in drunken condition. On objection, he started assaulting and called his companions standing outside the house namely, Ranjit Oraon, Premjit Oraon, Bairagi Oraon, Rajendra Oraon and Binod Oraon. They also started assaulting and made complainant's daughter naked. They forcefully took her outside his house. The complaint was sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which led to the institution of the instant F.I.R. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against six accused persons. Cognizance was taken under the aforesaid offences. The case was committed for trial on 29^th November, 2010 by the learned S.D.J.M., Gumla to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under

¶19

-2-

¶20

the aforesaid sections on 19^th December, 2011 and read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined five witnesses namely P.W.-1 Bigni Devi, mother of the victim girl; P.W.-2 Jhunu Oraon, the complainant; P.W.-3 Kalawati Kumari, victim girl; P.W.-4 Vishnu Oraon, a relative of informant who belonged to another village and was declared hostile; P.W.-5 Gorelal Singh, the Investigating Officer. Exhibit-1 is the signature of informant on the complaint petition; Exhibit-2 is the signature of Kalawati Kumari on the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 23^rd June, 2010; Exhibit-3 is the endorsement of Officer in-charge on the complaint petition. The learned trial court considered the material evidence adduced on behalf of the informant and did not find the charges proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.

¶21

On perusal of the impugned judgment and consideration of the submission of the counsel for the parties reveals the following important aspects of the case:-

¶22

P.W.-1 Bigni Devi, mother of the victim, has admitted in her deposition that she came one week after the alleged occurrence when the incident was narrated by her husband. She also stated that the girl went to Delhi on Sunday after one day of occurrence. She returned home from Delhi after two months. P.W.-1 was unable to tell the name of all these six accused persons, though she identified them. She admitted that Baney Oraon is the son of her husband's brother. Her daughter had gone at about 09:00 p.m. to the pond with Mahendra Oraon, a co-villager, but this witness was not present at the time of occurrence. Kalawati went to Delhi alongwith one Hema. Hema's mother has been living in Delhi for fourteen years. The case was lodged after conversation with her daughter on phone. The alleged place of occurrence (Akhra) is in the middle of the village beside which there are houses of Surju Singh and Bhaiya Ram and the house of her Bhaisur. There was a dispute with the accused persons with respect to the pump. She also accepted that there were no witnesses of the incident in her village. Learned trial court found her to be a hear say witness who could not be relied upon to support the prosecution story.

¶23

P.W.-2 Jhunu Oraon the informant and father of the victim girl in his examination-in-chief stated the date of occurrence as 2^nd April, 2010. According to him, Kalawati had gone for nature's call towards the pond at about 09:00 p.m.

¶24

-3-

¶25

when he was going to sleep. In the way Baney Oraon caught her and took her home and he told that either he would beat the informant or his daughter. Thereafter he started beating her with wood in the courtyard and forced her to enter her house. Thereafter he came alongwith four other boys. All the five boys took her to Akhra and in the way they met Jogendra. They started beating her after tying her hands and made her naked. He did not know anything that they did thereafter. They gave her cloths and brought her back. He had gone to Lodam Bajar on Sunday but before he returned home her daughter alongwith Hema had gone to Delhi. She returned after one month. He also admitted that Baney Oraon is the son of younger brother and rest five accused persons are villagers and relatives. He also stated that there are many houses around the Akhra. He stated that the occurrence is of the 4^th date and he has lodged the case after fifteen days of occurrence. A meeting was held in the village but the accused persons did not agree with the Panches.

¶26

P.W.-3 the victim girl in her examination-in-chief has stated that the date of occurrence is 2^nd March, 2010 at around 9-10 p.m. when she had gone for nature's call, Baney Oraon had also gone for nature's call. He assaulted her with fists and slaps and took her home. He started beating her in presence of her father with wood. He also brought four boys who started pressing her neck. She again narrated the story of taking her to Akhra where her cloths were uncovered to which she protested. Her hands were tied in the back for one and half hours and after pressing her body her cloths were given to her. She stated that she went to Delhi with her friend Hema from where she returned on 20^th May. Her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 23^rd June, 2010 (Exhibit-2). She has, in her cross-examination, stated that Baney Oraon is son of her uncle and all the lands of her family is intact. She also stated that when she was brought back to her house at that time her younger sister was present. The injuries sustained by her became black. Her father kept silent. Her father did not go to the Akhra. She alleged that on hearing alarm no body came there though there were 3-4 houses in between her house and Akhra. According to her, on the next day she narrated the story to two of her friends namely, Sima Kumari and Hema Kumari but she did not take any treatment for her injured legs. On the 3^rd day she went to Beritoli and stayed with her friend. On dated 5^th she proceeded for Delhi. She did

¶27

-4-

¶28

not inform her father regarding going to Delhi. She had not lodged any case regarding said occurrence.

¶29

P.W.-4 Vishnu Oraon is a relative of informant who has been declared hostile as he also stated that he knows nothing about the incident and belong to another village.

¶30

P.W.-5 Gorelal Singh, the Investigating Officer, in his deposition apart from the other statement made, has further stated that he went to the village for investigation. The informant did not disclose the matter of abduction of his daughter but he disclosed that on the next day his daughter had gone to Delhi with her friend Hema. He had not recorded statement of any person of that village. While recording the statement of victim girl, he did not find sign of injury on the body of the victim girl. He further stated that the victim girl did not disclose the matter of her abduction. The victim girl had not stated before him that there was previous dispute in between the family of informant and accused Baney Oraon. The informant and the victim girl also did not disclose the reason behind the occurrence.

¶31

These are the materials evidence before the learned trial court on which it has been persuaded to hold that the prosecution has been unable to establish the charges beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has endevoured to impress that there is consistency in the statement of the victim girl in her deposition vis-a-vis the statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that in itself is sufficient to constitute the offences alleged against the accused persons. The informant has been able to explain the delay of 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. as there was a meeting in the village to which the accused persons did not agree. The offences are serious in nature and when a minor girl is assaulted in such a manner the accused persons should not be allowed to go escort free. Therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the opposite parties representing the accused persons submits that the story set up by the informant is full of contradictions. The incident of such a serious nature has been reported after 15 days of the occurrence. The statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. relied upon by the petitioner is recorded after two months on her return from Delhi i.e. on 23^rd June, 2010. No sanctity can be attached to such statement recorded after a lapse of two

¶33

-5-

¶34

months from the date of occurrence. Moreover, no F.I.R. or complaint was lodged immediately after the incident containing the aforesaid allegations. He submits that there are no independent witnesses to support the prosecution story though as per the evidence of PWs and the I.O., there were houses in between the informant's house and the Akhra which is in the middle of the village. There are other evidences also in relation to the victim girl having accompanied another villager to the pond at night. In totality, none of the prosecution witnesses have been able to establish the charges. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. There is presumption of double innocence in cases of such acquittal.

¶35

We have considered the entire submissions of the parties and the material evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and also analyzed in detail by the learned trial court. 8. Upon scrutiny of the entire material evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed by the learned trial court, we are of the view that they do not suffer from perversity or lack of appreciation of evidence on record. The learned trial court has found unexplained delay in the institution of the complaint. The learned trial court has also found inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.-3 who has reported the date of occurrence as 2^nd March, 2010 though the date of occurrence is alleged to be 2^nd April, 2010. Further, the two friends namely Seema Kumari and Hema Kumari to whom the victim girl claimed to have narrated the story on the next day itself has neither been examined to support the prosecution story nor the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has been adduced by examination of the Judicial Officer who recorded it. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant petition.

¶36

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶37

(B.B. Mangalmurti, J.)

¶38

Birendra/R.S.

Jhunu Oraon v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhunu Oraon v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Mahto Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Employers in Relation to the M Vs President, Bihar Shramik Sangh

Durgapur Steel Plant Rep.by Dy Vs M/S Balajee Electosteels Ltd. And

Hatia Bisthapit Pariwar Sammittee Through Its President Pankaj Kumar Sahdeo Vs Revenue Department

Sita Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Yogendra Nath Mahto Vs the Union of India through G M S E Railway and Ors.