Partly allowed

Ranthu Oraon and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2024Cr.A(SJ)/357/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Sections 307/149 IPC for a witchcraft-related assault was set aside on appeal because injury reports showed only simple superficial abrasions inconsistent with intent to kill. Appellants were instead convicted under Sections 147, 323/149 IPC and Section 3 of the Witchcraft Act; sentence already undergone was held sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside; appellants convicted under Sections 147, 323/149 IPC and Section 3 Witchcraft Act; sentence restricted to period already undergone.

Ranthu Oraon and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

(Against the common judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2013 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2013, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1^st , Lohardaga, in S.T. Case No.140 of 2006 (arising out of Kisko P.S. Case No.54 of 2005 & G.R. No.565 of 2005).

¶4

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 of 2013

¶5

1.Ranthu Oraon 2.Punai Oraon …. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.466 of 2013 Baldeo Oraon …. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.392 of 2013 1.Somra Oraon 2.Lal Oraon 3.Tulwa Devi 4.Laldeo Oraon 5.Budu Oraon @ Budhu Oraon 6.Vishwanath Oraon @ Vishnath Oraon Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Appellants : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Lochan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, SPP Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, SPP Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, APP

¶6

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

¶7

1. These Criminal appeals are directed against the common judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2013 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2013, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1^st , Lohardaga, in S.T. Case No.140 of 2006 (arising out of Kisko P.S. Case No.54 of 2005 & G.R. No.565 of 2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 148, 307/ 149 IPC and under Section 3 of Prevention of Witch Practices Act.

¶8

2. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is assailed mainly on the ground that the offence under Section 307 IPC will not be made out in view of the injury report adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits-4 and 4/1,

¶9

¶10

¶11

wherein only superficial abrasions, have been found and the Doctor has opined that the injury to be simple in nature. In Exhibit-4, it has been noted that no relevant injury was found nor any swelling was present. The X-ray report was not suggestive of any fracture. Exhibit-4/1 is the injury report of the injured/ informant (Budhman Oraon) wherein only two minor abrasions have been found. It is submitted that on these medical evidence(s), charge under Section 307 IPC will not be made out. It is the settled law that intention to cause death is the essential ingredient for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Intention being a mental element can be inferred only from the nature of injuries, part of body in which it is inflicted, nature of weapon used. The injuries in the present case are so superficial that logically no inference can be drawn that appellants were actuated by the requisite intention. In the absence of such intention conviction under Section 307 IPC is without any basis.

¶12

4. Learned APP/SPP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶13

5. I find much force in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant(s) that offence under Section 307 IPC will not be made out on the basis of the evidence on record.

¶14

Under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction under Section 307 IPC is set aside.

¶15

However, the appellants are convicted under Sections 147, 323/149 IPC and under Section 3 of the Witchcraft Act.

¶16

Considering the age, antecedent of the appellants, rigour of trial and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence already undergone by the appellants will meet the ends of justice.

¶17

The sureties are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

¶18

Criminal Appeals are dismissed with modification in finding and

¶19

sentence.

¶20

Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.

¶21

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶22

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 21.03.2024. sandeep/

Ranthu Oraon and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranthu Oraon and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Sahabuddin And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Kedar Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand Thr CBI

Shyamlal Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mathur Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukra Dehri Vs the State of Jharkhand