Goenda Oraon Vs. the State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/519602
SubjectCriminal
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnMay-21-2009
Judge Pradeep Kumar, J.
Reported in2010CriLJ626
AppellantGoenda Oraon
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - 9. thus, after going through the evidence of the prosecution as well as of defence, it appears that defence wanted to take evasive stand that the injured was fired by his brother jagan pahar but even his witnesses accepted that jagan pahan is traceless since last 15 years and no body has seen him in the village and as such defence taken by the appellant falls to the ground.pradeep kumar, j.1. the appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2001 passed by shrimati shakuntala sinha, judicial commissioner, ranchi in sessions trial no. 399 of 1999, by which judgment she found the appellant guilty under section 307 of the indian penal code and section 27 of the arms act and sentenced him to undergo r.i. for 5 years for the offence under section 307 of the indian penal code and r.i. for 3 years for the offence under section 27 of the arms act. however, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. the prosecution case was started on the basis of a fardbeyan given by the informant, gandru pahan (p.w.5) on 2.1 98 at 10.30 hrs. at bero police station stating therein that in the last night at about 9.30 p.m. while he was going from his old house to his new house at village saheda and as soon as he reached at a distance about 200 yards away from his house at saheda he heard sound of firing and he received injuries on his left shoulder. he turned and saw the accused, goenda oraon along with one another with pistol and seeing him injured this accused and his companion fled away. the informant raised alarm, on which his cousin brothers, kanuha pahan and kasi pahan rushed and removed him to the house of kanhua pahan. as it had become night they could not took the injured to the hospital. in the next morning, he was moved to bero govt. hospital, where his treatment was done and subsequently he made statement to the police that they have got dispute with regard to jarmun tree3. on the basis of the said f.i.r. the police registered a case under sections 307/324/34 of the indian penal code and 27 of the arms act and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under the aforesaid sections since section 307 of the indian penal code was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges were flamed under section 307 of the indian penal code and 77 of the arms act. the case was fried by judicial commissioner, ranchi, who found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated due to previous enmity and all the prosecution witnesses are accused in the case lodged by the accused appellant against the informant and another with regard to jamun tree and as such the conviction is bad and fit to be set aside5. on the other hand, learned counsel for the state has supported the prosecution case and stated that the conviction is well founded and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the fact that the firing was done by the accused-appellant. the defence witnesses have also proved the fact that their defence was a false defence and they were trying to falsely implicate one jagan pahan.6. after hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences as produced during trial, i find that the informant is the only eye witness in the case since the occurrence took place at 9.30 p.m. in the night when he was going from old house to his new house at village saheda. the informant (p.w.5) stated in court that on the date of occurrence i.e. 1.7.98 while he was going from old house to new house at village seheda and as soon as he reached at a distance of about 200 yards away from his house at village saheda, he heard the sound of firing. he was carrying torch, so he flashed torch and in the light of torch he saw the accused-appellant and one unknown person were present there and accused-appellant had revolver in his hand from which he fired upon him causing injury on his left shoulder. he made 'hullah' for saving him. on which his cousin brothers, kanhua pahan and kasi pahan came and lock him to the house of kashi. he told the occurrence to kashi and kanhua. as it had become night he could not took injured to the hospital in the next morning, he was moved to govt. hospital, bero, where he was fronted and officer-in-chage came there and recorded his statement. the statement was read over to him and he signed the same he proved his signature as ext. 2 . he had also identified the signature of kanhua pahan as ext. 2/1. he was sent to r.m.c.h., ranchi from bero hospital. he stated that there was a dispute between them with regard to jamun tree. he identified the accused in court.at para 6, in his cross-examination. he stated that the accused made two firing causing injury on his back. he had seen him from the front. accused had not fired again upon him. on hullah' just after two minutes, his brothers, kasi pahan and kanhua reached there at para 10. in his cross-examination, he stated that be was taken to rmch, ranchi by his brother, kanhua pahan and his daughter. asha kumar he stated that the accused-appellant also stayed in village saheda and except appellant he had got no dispute with anybody in the villageat para 12, in his cross-examination, he stated that his own brother jagan pahan is absconding from the village since last 12 years and on suggestion, denied that in the night, firing was done by his brother, jagan pahan since he has ousted him from the houseboth the brothers of the informant i.e. p.w.1. kanhua pahan and p.w.2, kashi pahan, who came immediately after the occurrence, also supported the prosecution case. he stated on 1.7.98 at about 9.30 p.m. in the night on 'hullah' they went to the place of occurrence and saw their brother-informant gandru pahan was in injured condition as he has injury on his left solider. he told them that the accused-appellant fired upon him and ran away. then in the morning they took him to the bero govt. hospitalp.w.1, kanhua pahan, has stated that in hero hospital the statement of the informant was recorded by the officer-in-charge he was sent to r.m.c.h., ranchi. then, they took him to rmch. ranchi where he was treated for five days.p.w.2, kashi pahan also stated that on the date of occurrence at about 9.30. p.m. they went out after hearing hullah of gandni pahan and found that he was in injured condition after taking torch, which was lying down they saw that he has received gun shot injury on his left solider. he stated that the appellant had fired upon him and ran away. he also stated that the injured stayed in his house since it was night and in the next morning they took him to bero govt. hospital where ho was treated and his statement was recorded by the officer-in-charge, bero police station. in his cross-examination, he stated that in the night nobody was present at the placed of occurrence on 'hullah' except he and his brother, kanhua pahan. he also admitted that they have got fight with the accused-appellant with regard to jamun tree. in his cross-examination, the defence gave him a suggestion that there is a dispute regarding jamun tree with goenda oraon with the informant, hence he has given false statement, since, the informant after the incident stated that his brother jagan pahan has actually fired upon him. whereupon he denied the same and said that has not seen jagan pahan since 11-12 yearsp.w.3 also corroborated the prosecution case and stated that on 25th july, 1998 he was posted in rmch, ranchi and he found penetrating wound on upper part of left upper arm just below left shoulder. x-ray number l-1476 dated 2.7.1998 showing communited fracture of left upper part of left humerus and two radio-opaque foreign body at the site of injury. the injury was grievous in nature caused by gun shot injury. he proved the injury report as ext. -1.p.w.4, sukka pahan and p.w.6. asha kumari have also supported the prosecution case.7. thus, it appears from the prosecution evidence that the evidence of the informant (p.w.5) has been fully supposed by doctor (p.w.3) and the witnesses who came immediately alter the occurrence. p.w 1 and 2, have stood the test of cross-examination, staled that the firing was done; by the accused and not by the brother of the informant, which was denied by the witnesses.8. the defence has also examined four witnesses d.w. 1, sidhu singh has stated that at the time of occurrence on 1.7.1998 at about 9.30 p.m. after the occurrence he was present with other villagers and said that his brother, jagan pahan fired upon informant and he reported the matter to the police, but in his cross-examination, he has got no paper or copy that he had given any information to the police or in court he also admitted about the request of the wife of the accused to make such statement. d.w.2 also stated that at the time of occurrence that the injured said that his brother fired upon him, but in his cross examination, this witness was falsified when he said that he had not seen jagan pahan in the village. he stated that it is a truth that jagan pahan had not been seen in the village since last 15 years.d.w.3, also stated that on the date of occurrence the accused was present in his house and heard only sound of firing when he came to the place of occurrence along with other witnesses then the informant told that he was fired upon by jagan pahan. but this witness also admitted in para 3 that jagan pahan is not living in the village and he has not been seen since last 15 years.9. thus, after going through the evidence of the prosecution as well as of defence, it appears that defence wanted to take evasive stand that the injured was fired by his brother jagan pahar but even his witnesses accepted that jagan pahan is traceless since last 15 years and no body has seen him in the village and as such defence taken by the appellant falls to the ground. the evidence of the informant and his prosecution witness p.ws. 1, 2 and 4 have all proved the fact and corroborated the evidence of informant (p.w.5) firing was done with intention to cause death and the informant disclosed the same at the place of occurrence itself to the witnesses.10. in that view of the matter, i find that the appellant with intention to caused the death of the informant fired upon the injured and he has committed offence under section 307 of the indian penal code as also under section 27 of the arms act and he was rightly convicted and found guilty by the court below.11. i find no illegality in the impugned judgment the same is accordingly dismissed.12. the sentence of five years awarded to the accused is also on the lenient side and no requires interference by this court. since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and the learned court below is directed to issue warrant of arrest forthwith.
Judgment:

Pradeep Kumar, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2001 passed by Shrimati Shakuntala Sinha, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 399 of 1999, by which judgment she found the appellant guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of a Fardbeyan given by the informant, Gandru Pahan (P.W.5) on 2.1 98 at 10.30 hrs. at Bero Police Station stating therein that in the last night at about 9.30 P.M. while he was going from his old house to his new house at village Saheda and as soon as he reached at a distance about 200 yards away from his house at Saheda he heard sound of firing and he received injuries on his left shoulder. He turned and saw the accused, Goenda Oraon along with one another with pistol and seeing him injured this accused and his companion fled away. The informant raised alarm, on which his cousin brothers, Kanuha Pahan and Kasi Pahan rushed and removed him to the house of Kanhua Pahan. As it had become night they could not took the injured to the Hospital. In the next morning, he was moved to Bero Govt. Hospital, where his treatment was done and subsequently he made statement to the police that they have got dispute with regard to Jarmun Tree

3. On the basis of the said F.I.R. the police registered a case under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under the aforesaid Sections Since Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were flamed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 77 of the Arms Act. The case was fried by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid

4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated due to previous enmity and all the prosecution witnesses are accused in the case lodged by the accused appellant against the informant and another with regard to Jamun Tree and as such the conviction is bad and fit to be set aside

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and stated that the conviction is well founded and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the fact that the firing was done by the accused-appellant. The defence witnesses have also proved the fact that their defence was a false defence and they were trying to falsely implicate one Jagan Pahan.

6. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences as produced during trial, I find that the informant is the only eye witness in the case since the occurrence took place at 9.30 P.M. in the night when he was going from old house to his new house at village Saheda. The informant (P.W.5) stated in Court that on the date of occurrence i.e. 1.7.98 while he was going from old house to new house at village Seheda and as soon as he reached at a distance of about 200 yards away from his house at village Saheda, he heard the sound of firing. He was carrying torch, so he flashed torch and in the light of torch he saw the accused-appellant and one unknown person were present there and accused-appellant had revolver in his hand from which he fired upon him causing injury on his left shoulder. He made 'Hullah' for saving him. On which his cousin brothers, Kanhua Pahan and Kasi Pahan came and lock him to the house of Kashi. He told the occurrence to Kashi and Kanhua. As it had become night he could not took injured to the Hospital In the next morning, he was moved to Govt. Hospital, Bero, where he was fronted and Officer-in-Chage came there and recorded his statement. The statement was read over to him and he signed the same He proved his signature as Ext. 2 . He had also identified the signature of Kanhua Pahan as Ext. 2/1. He was sent to R.M.C.H., Ranchi from Bero Hospital. He stated that there was a dispute between them with regard to Jamun Tree. He identified the accused in Court.

At para 6, in his cross-examination. he stated that the accused made two firing causing injury on his back. He had seen him from the front. Accused had not fired again upon him. On Hullah' just after two minutes, his brothers, Kasi Pahan and Kanhua reached there At para 10. in his cross-examination, he stated that be was taken to RMCH, Ranchi by his brother, Kanhua Pahan and his daughter. Asha Kumar He stated that the accused-appellant also stayed in village Saheda and except appellant he had got no dispute with anybody in the village

At para 12, in his cross-examination, he stated that his own brother Jagan Pahan is absconding from the village since last 12 years and on suggestion, denied that in the night, firing was done by his brother, Jagan Pahan since he has ousted him from the house

Both the brothers of the informant i.e. P.W.1. Kanhua Pahan and P.W.2, Kashi Pahan, who came immediately after the occurrence, also supported the prosecution case. He stated on 1.7.98 at about 9.30 p.m. in the night on 'Hullah' they went to the place of occurrence and saw their brother-informant Gandru Pahan was in injured condition as he has injury on his left solider. He told them that the accused-appellant fired upon him and ran away. Then in the morning they took him to the Bero Govt. Hospital

P.W.1, Kanhua Pahan, has stated that in Hero Hospital the statement of the informant was recorded by the Officer-in-charge He was sent to R.M.C.H., Ranchi. Then, they took him to RMCH. Ranchi where he was treated for five days.

P.W.2, Kashi Pahan also stated that on the date of occurrence at about 9.30. p.m. they went out after hearing Hullah of Gandni Pahan and found that he was in injured condition After taking torch, which was lying down they saw that he has received gun shot injury on his left solider. He stated that the appellant had fired upon him and ran away. He also stated that the injured stayed in his house since it was night and in the next morning they took him to Bero Govt. Hospital where ho was treated and his statement was recorded by the Officer-in-charge, Bero police station. In his cross-examination, he stated that in the night nobody was present at the placed of occurrence on 'Hullah' except he and his brother, Kanhua Pahan. He also admitted that they have got fight with the accused-appellant with regard to Jamun Tree. In his cross-examination, the defence gave him a suggestion that there is a dispute regarding Jamun tree with Goenda Oraon with the informant, hence he has given false statement, since, the informant after the incident stated that his brother Jagan Pahan has actually fired upon him. Whereupon he denied the same and said that has not seen Jagan Pahan since 11-12 years

P.W.3 also corroborated the prosecution case and stated that on 25th July, 1998 he was posted in RMCH, Ranchi and he found penetrating wound on upper part of left upper arm just below left shoulder. X-ray number L-1476 dated 2.7.1998 showing communited fracture of left upper part of left humerus and two Radio-opaque Foreign body at the site of injury. The injury was grievous in nature caused by gun shot injury. He proved the injury report as Ext. -1.

P.W.4, Sukka Pahan and P.W.6. Asha Kumari have also supported the prosecution case.

7. Thus, it appears from the prosecution evidence that the evidence of the informant (P.W.5) has been fully supposed by doctor (P.W.3) and the witnesses who came immediately alter the occurrence. P.W 1 and 2, have stood the test of cross-examination, staled that the firing was done; by the accused and not by the brother of the informant, which was denied by the witnesses.

8. The defence has also examined four witnesses D.W. 1, Sidhu Singh has stated that at the time of occurrence on 1.7.1998 at about 9.30 p.m. after the occurrence he was present with other villagers and said that his brother, Jagan Pahan fired upon informant and he reported the matter to the police, but in his cross-examination, he has got no paper or copy that he had given any information to the police or in Court he also admitted about the request of the wife of the accused to make such statement. D.W.2 also stated that at the time of occurrence that the injured said that his brother fired upon him, but in his cross examination, this witness was falsified when he said that he had not seen Jagan Pahan in the village. He stated that it is a truth that Jagan Pahan had not been seen in the village since last 15 years.

D.W.3, also stated that on the date of occurrence the accused was present in his house and heard only sound of firing when he came to the place of occurrence along with other witnesses then the informant told that he was fired upon by Jagan Pahan. but this witness also admitted in para 3 that Jagan Pahan is not living in the village and he has not been seen since last 15 years.

9. Thus, after going through the evidence of the prosecution as well as of defence, it appears that defence wanted to take evasive stand that the injured was fired by his brother Jagan Pahar but even his witnesses accepted that Jagan Pahan is traceless since last 15 years and no body has seen him in the village and as such defence taken by the appellant falls to the ground. The evidence of the informant and his prosecution witness P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 have all proved the fact and corroborated the evidence of informant (P.W.5) firing was done with intention to cause death and the informant disclosed the same at the place of occurrence itself to the witnesses.

10. In that view of the matter, I find that the appellant with intention to caused the death of the informant fired upon the injured and he has committed offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and he was rightly convicted and found guilty by the court below.

11. I find no illegality in the impugned judgment the same is accordingly dismissed.

12. The sentence of five years awarded to the accused is also on the lenient side and no requires interference by this Court. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and the learned court below is directed to issue warrant of arrest forthwith.