Partly allowed

Punai Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2025Cr.A(DB)/990/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging a life sentence, the High Court of Jharkhand held that the appellant did not act in concert or with intent to kill. The court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC and reduced the life sentence to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC; sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone; bail bonds discharged.

Punai Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:27663-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 990 of 2003

¶4

[Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.04.2003 and sentence dated 29.04.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 147/2001]

¶5

¶6

Punai Oraon S/o Bandhan Oraon, resident of village Sarango Pokh Toli, Police Station – Ghaghra, District-Gumla ... ... Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶12

¶13

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate

¶14

For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP

¶15

¶16

C.A.V. on 19.08.2025 Pronounced on 10/09/2025 Per-Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:

¶17

The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28/29.04.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 147/2001 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

¶18

Factual Matrix: -

¶19

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 04.03.2001 at about 07:00 AM, father of the informant Faguni Kumari (P.W.-7), the deceased Birya Bhagat @ Budhwa Bhagat had gone to Kairo Tand for ploughing his field. It is alleged that at about 10:00 AM while he was returning to his house along with plough and bullocks and reached near the house of Kishun Oraon, meanwhile, accused Punai Oraon came to the KHALIHAN of the informant (P.W.-7) where she was thrashing pea crops, snatched informant’s Danda and

¶20

¶21

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 990 of 2003

¶22

2025:JHHC:27663-DB

¶23

along with accused Bandhnu Oraon who was already armed with Danda surrounded Birya Bhagat and started indiscriminately assaulting him. It is further alleged that accused Punai Oraon (present appellant) gave a Danda Blow on the back of the informant (Faguni Kumari -P.W.7), thereafter, they assaulted to Birya Bhagat with his Danda due to which he fell down, meanwhile, Bandhnu Oraon took out a knife from his waist and stabbed Birya Bhagat on his face and both the accused persons fled away. Due to severe injuries caused by Knife and Danda, Birya Bhagat died on the spot. The villagers assembled there and had seen the occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is alleged that there was land dispute between the father of the informant and the accused persons.

¶24

On the basis of above information, Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 17/2001 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

¶25

After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused persons including the appellants. The co-accused Bandhnu Oraon was found juvenile in conflict with law and his case was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board.

¶26

Present appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

¶27

After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

¶28

Submissions on behalf of appellant

¶29

Assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is specific allegation of injury by Lathi against the present appellant caused from behind. As per the opinion of the Doctor (P.W.-9), who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, one incised wound 3”x2” on left mandibular region resulted fracture of left mandible with blood clot caused by sharp cutting, was responsible for the death of the deceased. Other injuries were caused by Danda but not on any vital part of the body. It is further submitted that the occurrence has taken place in a sudden manner, in the heat of passion without premeditation and there was no intention to kill the deceased by the appellant who

¶30

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 990 of 2003

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:27663-DB

¶33

was holding a Danda only and there is an allegation of single blow by Lathi. The appellant was all along in custody since 04.03.2001 to 08.03.2010 during trial and post-conviction and was granted bail in this appeal vide order dated 08.03.2010. Therefore, he has sustained imprisonment about 9 years and ingredients of Section 302 IPC is not proved against the appellant rather the case falls under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Hence, considering the long period of custody of the appellant, he has adequately been punished for his guilt, hence, sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC is fit to be reduced to offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC with sentence of imprisonment already undergone.

¶34

Submissions on behalf of State

¶35

On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and submitted that there is no circumstance to reduce the nature of offence committed by the appellant or to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Analysis, discussions and reasons

¶37

We have gone through the record of the case along with oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

¶38

It appears that in the F.I.R. itself, there is an allegation of causing assault by a Danda snatching the same from the informant against the present appellant. It is alleged that after some time, co-accused Bandhnu Oraon assaulted with his Danda thereafter whipped out a knife from his waist and assaulted the deceased causing fracture of left mandibular region.

¶39

P.W.-9, Doctor Ramesh Prasad, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has found five injuries:-

¶40

(i) Bleeding from left ear;

¶41

(ii) Bruise over left cheek 3”x2” with the fracture of left maxilla, a fracture of left upper jaw;

¶42

¶43

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 990 of 2003

¶44

2025:JHHC:27663-DB

¶45

(iii) Incised wound of left mandibular region 3”x2” fracture of left mandible with blood clot;

¶46

(iv) Lacerated wound on mid-frontal region 2”x1/2” with fracture of frontal bone with blood clot with brain injury;

¶47

(v) Lacerated wound at left eye-brow 3”x1/4”.

¶48

Informant has been examined as P.W.-7 and in her oral evidence also, she has corroborated the case mentioned in her Fardebeyan and specifically stated that while she was thrashing pea crops by a Danda, her father was returning after ploughing field, meanwhile, accused persons Bandhnu Oraon and Punai Oraon came there and accused Punai Oraon snatched her Danda and assaulted her father. Bandhnu Oraon caught hold of her father and gave knife blow on the cheek of her father due to which, her father died. She has further reiterated in her cross-examination that thrice knife blow was inflicted by accused Bandhnu Oraon on the neck of her father.

¶49

P.W.-2 Pramila Kumari is the sister of informant and claims herself to be present at the place of occurrence along with his father (deceased). She has also stated that Punai Oraon (present appellant) gave Danda Blow to her father then he fell down, thereafter, accused Punai Oraon started assaulting by a knife and Danda due to which her father died. She has also stated about land dispute between the parties which was cause of this incident.

¶50

P.W.-3 Sarhulia Devi is sister of deceased and hearsay witness from informant and saw the dead body of the deceased.

¶51

P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 Mohan Baitha and Surendra Singh, respectively are the witnesses of the inquest report and they are not eye witness of the occurrence.

¶52

P.W.6 and P.W.-8 Bandhu Oraon and Durga Bhagat, respectively are the witness of the seizure list of blood-stained earth and two Danda from the place of occurrence and put their signature on seizure list.

¶53

P.W.-10 , S.I. Braj Kishore Singh is the I.O. of the case. He visited the place of occurrence and recorded Fardbeyan of the informant Faguni Kumari (P.W.-7) and prepared inquest report and seizure list at the place of occurrence

¶54

¶55

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 990 of 2003

¶56

2025:JHHC:27663-DB

¶57

in respect of blood-stained earth and Danda. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons.

¶58

P.W.-1 Balki Orain, is the mother of the informant and wife of the deceased. She is a hearsay witness through her daughter and thereafter she went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband under injured conditions.

¶59

From the aforesaid discussions of oral testimony of witnesses, it appears that except P.W.7 and P.W.2 there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the genesis, manner and place of occurrence as proved by the above witnesses, it is obvious that after giving assault by Danda by present appellant to the informant and her father, the co-accused Bandhnu Oraon appeared and also started assaulting to the deceased by Danda on his face as well as by knife. Therefore, it cannot be said that both the accused persons have conducted in a concerted manner in a pre-planned manner in order to attract section 34 IPC. The Lathi blow caused by this accused is also held to be not responsible for causing death of the deceased rather it was knife injury which was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the culpability of the present appellant has to be decided on the basis of his own individual act. It is admitted position that due to land dispute, a scuffle took place and at the first, the present appellant snatched a Danda from the hands of the informant and gave Danda Blow from behind to the informant and her father (deceased). There is no specific allegation against the present appellant that he has given repeated assault even by Danda to the deceased. Therefore, the act of the appellant in assaulting the deceased may likely be cause death but it cannot be inferred that he was intending to cause death or having knowledge that the injury caused by him would be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

¶60

In view of the above discussion, the case of the appellant falls under the category of offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC.

¶61

We have given anxious consideration to the overall events alleged against the appellant and find that conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is absolutely not sustainable in absence of any premeditation of mind or acting in a concerted manner with another co-accused 5

¶62

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 990 of 2003

¶63

2025:JHHC:27663-DB

¶64

and there was no injury caused by the appellant on the vital part of the body, which might be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is altered in to offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC.

¶65

So far as sentence is concerned, admittedly the appellant has sustained more than nine years imprisonment during trial of the case and post-conviction, which appears to be sufficient punishment in the facts and circumstances of this case and nature of offence committed. Therefore, we are inclined to award the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant in spite of rigorous imprisonment for life.

¶66

In result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life is also reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant.

¶67

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with the modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence to the extent as mentioned above.

¶68

Since, the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.

¶69

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶70

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

¶71

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶72

(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)

¶73

Jharkhand High Court Dated 10/09/2025 Basant/ N. A. F. R.

¶74

¶75

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 990 of 2003

Punai Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punai Oraon v. 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

Ramesh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Ganjhu Alias Jathal Ganjhu Vs State of Jharkhand

Sonu Manjhi Vs State of Jharkhand

Sarkun Bibi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Anjela Hansda Vs State of Jharkhand

Kashi Mahato Vs State of Jharkhand