Case No. S.T.

506/2017 Page 1 of 12

Annexure-I

In the Court of Addition Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi

Present : Vishal Srivastava, AJC-VII, Ranchi

Dated : 14th day of March, 2024

District : Ranchi

Case No. : S.T. 506/2017

T.R. No. 78/2017
CNR. No. JHRN01-0067002017

(In connection with Angara P.S. Case No. 21/2017)

State of Jharkhand through
Name of Informant : Tanu Kumari
Informant D/o Manga Oraon
R/o village – Lepsar, Tungri Toli, P.S. - Angara,
District - Ranchi
Represented by Sri S. Singh, Addl. P.P.
1. Name : Binod Oraon
Age : about 35 years
Father's Name : Kolha Oraon
Accused
Residential Address : Village- Mathen Jara,
P.S. - Angara, District - Ranchi
Permanent Address : ---same as above----

Represented by Sri S.P. Singh, Ld. Adv.

Annexure-II

Date(s) of Offence 09.05.2017

Date of FIR 10.05.2017
Date(s) of Charge sheet 20.07.2017
Date(s) of Framing of Charges 11.12.2017
Date of Commencement of 08.01.2018
evidence
Date on Judgment is reserved 07.03.2024
Date of Judgment 14.03.2024
Date of Sentencing Order, if any N.A.
Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 2 of 12

Accused Details
Rank Name of the Date of Arrest Date(s) of Offences charged Whether Sente Period of
of the Accused Released on with Acquitted or nce Detention
Accus Bail Convicted Impos Undergone
ed ed during Trial
for purpose of
Section 428
Cr.P.C.

1. Binod 11.05.2017 15.01.2018 U/s 302 IPC Acquitted N.A. N.A.

Oraon

Annexure-III

List of Prosecution / Defence / Court Witnesses

A. Prosecution:
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
(Eye Witness, Police Witness, Expert Witness, Medical
Witness, Panch Witness, other witness)

Pintu Prajapati @
PW-1 Hostile
Shashi Bhushan Prasad
PW-2 Namita Kumari Hearsay witness
PW-3 Bebi Kumari Hostile
Daughter of deceased and informant of
PW-4 Tanu Kumari
the case who is hearsay witness
Who examined deceased and proved
PW-5 Dr. Binod Das
injury report as exhibit-4
Dr. Manoj Kumar Who conducted postmortem examination
PW-6
Korah of deceased Bimla Devi

B. Defence witness, if any:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence
(Eye Witness, Police Witness, Expert Witness, Medical Witness,
Panch Witness, other witness)

C. Court Witness, if any:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence
(Eye Witness, Police Witness, Expert Witness, Medical Witness,
Panch Witness, other witness)

NIL NIL
Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 3 of 12

List of Prosecution / Defence / Court Exhibits

A. Prosecution :

Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description

1 Exhibit-1 Signature of PW1 on written report
2 Exhibit-1/1 Signature of Prem Oraon on written
report
3 Exhibit-2 Signature of PW4 on postmortem
report
4 Exhibit-2/1 Signature of Jai Ram Mahali on
postmortem report
5 Exhibit-3 Signature of Tanu Kumari on written
application
6 Exhibit-3/1 Signature of Karmi Devi on written
application
7 Exhibit-4 Injury report
8 Exhibit-5 Postmortem report
B. Defence :

Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description

C. Court Exhibits :

Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description

NIL
D. Material Objects :

Sr. No. Material Object Number Description

JUDGMENT

1. The above named sole accused is facing trial for the offence

punishable U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The case is based on fardbayn of P.W.4 Tanu Kumari, aged

about 16 years recorded by S.I. Ram Badan Mandal on 10.05.2017 at

6.30 A.M. at village Lepsar, Tungri Tola.

Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 4 of 12

As per prosecution case on 09.05.2017 at 8.00 P.M. Bimla

Devi the deceased was in her house received a telephone call on her

mobile. Now the story is that after talking on mobile she went back

side of her house and got missed. The family members slept after

waiting her. Now on the very next date the family members started

searching her and at 5.30 A.M. they found dead body of their mother

Bimla Devi with injuries on her body and oozing blood. The

deceased mobile was found near her dead body. As per fardbayan the

accused Binod Oraon always used to misbehave and right on her

mother and also assaulted her. It is story that in that day at 12.00

hours Noon the accused came to her house and gave threatening to

kill her.

3. After getting written report Angara P.S. Case No. 21/2017

dated 10.05.2017 was registered against the above named accused

person for the offence U/s 302/34 IPC.

After investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet no. 39/2017

dated 20.07.2017 against the above named accused person for the

offence U/s 302 IPC. Accordingly, on the basis of material available

on record cognizance of offence was taken and after compliance of

provisions U/s 207 of the Cr.P.C. the case record was committed to

the court of sessions and registered as present S.T. Case No.

506/2017.

4. Charge was framed on 11.12.2017 and explained over to the

accused on which he denied and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses in his

support. The prosecution evidence was closed and statement of

Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 5 of 12

accused person was recorded U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. Heard argument

of both sides and the case record has been fixed for judgment for

today i.e. on 14.03.2024.

6. The point of determination is that whether the prosecution has

proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts?

FINDINGS

7. During argument the learned counsel for the defence stated

that the witnesses failed to support the case of prosecution.

The learned counsel for the prosecution has submitted that

there is ample evidence to convict the accused person.

8. I have carefully scrutinized all the evidences came on the

record and find that in the case record P.W.1 and P.W.3 does not

support the prosecution story and turned up hostile.

P.W.2 is hearsay witness who heard that Binod Oraon

committed murder to mother of Tanu. She has no personal

knowledge about the occurrence and police never took her statement.

P.W.4 the informant of the case have supported her fardbayan

in her deposition. As per witness on the date of occurrence at 12.00

hour noon the accused came to her house and gave threatening to kill

her. The witness deposed that her mother used to travel with one

Pintu Kumar and due to the reason the accused always annoyed. The

witness has proved her signature on fardbayn as exhibit-1 and her

brother’s signature as exhibit-1/1. The witness further proved death

inquest report as exhibit-2 and signature of one Jairam Mahali as

exhibit-2/1. The witness has proved one written statement which he

given on 11.05.2017 as two unknown persons came and gave

Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 6 of 12

threatening to her. Admittedly the witness did not see the occurrence.

P.W.5 Dr. Binod Das who was posted as Medical Officer, CHC

Hospital, Anagara, Ranchi had examined the injured accused Binod

Oraon and found the following injury :-

Injuries (i) Abrasion forehead, size 1/4 cm x1/4 cm. (ii) Both

sides of cheek, left side of cheek 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm, right side of cheek

1/2 inch x 1/4 cm.

Mark of identification – Cut mark lower lip.

Age of injury – 24 to 36 hours.

Opinion :- Nature of injury – Injury no. (I) & (ii) are simple in

nature and may be caused by hard and blunt object.

The injury report is prepared by me and bears my signature

marked as exhibit-4.

P.W.6 Dr. Manoj Kumar Kora who was posted as Medical

Officer, In the department of FMT, RIMS, Ranchi who conducted

postmortem examination of dead body of Bimla Devi and found the

following injury :-

The body was average built, rigrous mortis present all over the

body, abdomen distended, dry blood stain on face and clothes,

presence of vaginal pad.

Abrasion (i) 3 cm x 2 cm back back of left wrist. (ii) 5 cm x ½

cam front of left thigh middle part. (iii) 4 cm x 2 cm fronto- medial

left knee. (iv) 3 cm x 2 cm right knee lateral side. (v) 10 cm x 2 cm

left cheek.

Lacerated wounds : (i) 8 cam x 4 cm x bone deep fronto-lateral

left forehead. (ii) 9 cm x 4 cm x soft tissue right parieto-occipital

Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 7 of 12

region.

Internal injuries : Fracture of left side of maxilla bone.

Diffused contusion of left fronto-right occipital scalp. Depressed

fracture 5 cm x 4 cm left frontal bone. Contusion of brain, presence if

sub-dural blood and blood clot both side o brain. Internal organs are

pale.

Opinion :-

1. The above noted injuries are antemortem in nature.

2. Cause by hard and blunt substances.

3. Death is due to head injuries and its complications.

4. Time since death 6.00 hours to 24.00 hours from the time of

postmortem examination.

5. Two vaginal slide sent to Department of pathology, RIMS,

Ranchi for detection of spermatozoa if any.

This postmortem report is prepared by me and bears my

signature which is marked as exhibit-5.

9. First of all I want to mention section 101 of the Evidence Act

which relates with the burden of proof. As per section whoever

desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability

dependent on the existence of fact which he asserts, must prove that

those facts exist. When a person is bound to proof the existence of

any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

Illustrations

(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be

punished for a crime which A says B has committed.

(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to

Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 8 of 12

certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he

asserts, and which B denies to be true.

A must prove the existence of those facts. In the present case

the prosecution tried to prove that the accused murdered the

deceased which comes under purview of section 302 IPC, hence

prosecution is duty bound to prove his case.

The Section 302 of the IPC prescribes a punishment for murder.

The murder is defined in Section 300 IPC which says:- Except in the

cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,

if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of

causing death, or,

Secondly:- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily

injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the

person to whom the harm is caused, or,

Thirdly:- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to

any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient

in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or,

Fourthly:- If the person committing the act knows that it is so

imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act

without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such

injury as aforesaid.

10. To easy appreciation I have to scrutinize the evidences to prove

the followings:-

(A) First:- Whether the deceased was murdered ?

(B) Second:- The involvement of the accused ?

Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 9 of 12

(A) Whether death of the deceased comes under purview of

murder in section 300 of the IPC ?

The death of Vimala Devi, aged about 35 years is not disputed.

All the witnesses who are even hostile did not deny the death of

Vimala Devi. Hence there is no dispute that the Vimla Devi was died.

I have carefully scrutinized all the evidences came on the

record and find that in this case the postmortem report is sufficient to

show that whether the deceased was murdered or not ? As per

allegation that the deceased died of hard and blunt substance and now

the question is whether death of deceased comes under purview of

section 300 of the IPC meaning thereby whether the deceased was

murdered. I have carefully scrutinized all the evidences came on the

record and find that it is a case of prosecution that deceased Vimala

Devi was died of hard and blunt substance. The postmortem report

which has also proved by the prosecution shows that the injuries were

caused by hard and blunt substance and death was due to head injury

and its complications. The above circumstances proved that the

manner was totally intentional to cause death of the deceased. Hence

it is proved accordingly that the deceased was caused death

intentionally which comes under purview of culpable homicide which

amount to murder under section 300 of the IPC.

So for involvement of the accused in the occurrence:- Now I have

carefully scrutinized all the evidences came on the record and find

that in the case record there are direct evidences as well as

circumstantial evidences.

Circumstantial evidences:- The circumstantial evidence are

Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 10 of 12

very effective peace of evidence because generally a witness may lie

but circumstance never.

In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra the

Honourable Apex Court hold that “Evidence-Circumstantial

evidence-Onus of proof- Prosecution must prove every link of the

chain and complete chain-Infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution

cannot be cured by false defence or plea. A person cannot be

convicted on pure moral conviction. False explanation can be used as

additional link to fortify the prosecution case, subject to satisfaction

of certain conditions”.

Followings five golden principles enunciated by the

Honourable Supreme Court in Hanumant v. The State of M.P.

[1952] SCR 1091 in which principles of Panchsheel has been given

regarding proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the

absence of a corpus deliciti :-

(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be

drawn should be fully established,

(ii) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis

of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable

on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and

tendency.

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to

be proved, and

(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any

reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence

Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 11 of 12

of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act

must have been done by the accused.

Hence in present case to convict the accused the prosecution

have to prove the following chain of circumstances:-

(a) Is there any Motive for the murder ?

(b) Presence of accused at the place of occurrence ?

(c) Weapons used in the occurrence was recovered from the accused

just after the occurrence?

(a) Is there any Motive for the murder ? In the case there is evidence

that the accused was always became annoyed with the deceased as

she used to walk with one Pintu Kumar. Here in the case the deceased

neither family members of the accused nor related to the accused.

There is no independent witness came to show that the accused was

annoyed earlier with the deceased. Hence in my opinion there is no

motive proved by prosecution which was caused the murder of the

deceased.

(b) Presence of accused at the place of occurrence ? In the case

record there is no evidence to prove that the accused was lastly seen

with the deceased. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused

was present at the place of occurrence. No witness had seen the

accused with the deceased even on the date of occurrence. Hence the

prosecution failed to prove the presence of accused at the place of

occurrence on the time of occurrence.

(c) Weapons used in the occurrence was recovered from the accused

just after the occurrence? As per prosecution the deceased was died

by hard and blunt substance. In the case nothing article has been
Case No. S.T. 506/2017 Page 12 of 12

seized from the place of occurrence. Nothing article was sent to F.S.L.

to connect the accused with the murder. In the lack of evidences, I

find that the prosecution failed to prove the nature of weapon used in

the murder of the deceased.

Considering all the above facts and circumstance, in my

opinion that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with

the murder and the total story of involvement of accused is based on

circumstantial evidences. In the case record the prosecution is failed

to prove the chain of the circumstances to reach on this conclusion

that it is only the accused who cause murder of the deceased.

11. So considering all the evidences and facts and circumstances, I

came on this conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove charges

against the accused. Accordingly, the accused Binod Oraon

acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 302 of the Indian Penal

Code and the accused is on bail and he is discharged from the

liabilities of his bail bond.

(Dictated and corrected by me)

Vishal Srivastava Vishal Srivastava

Addl. Judl. Commissioner VII, Addl. Judl. Commissioner VII,
Ranchi Ranchi
14-03-2024 ID No. 00487