2025:JHHC:16706-DB 1 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 357 of 1999(R) ----- (Against the judgment dated 07.09.1999 and order of sentence dated 10.09.1999 passed in S.T. No. 773 of 1994 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 22 of 1994 by the court of Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi) 1.Maya Ram Oraon S/o Tota Oraon, resident of Bandh Gari, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi 2.Ropna Oraon S/o Sukra Oraon, Resident of Village- Sundil, P.S.- Ratu, Distict- Ranchi --- --- Appellants Versus The State of Bihar now Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellants : Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, Advocate Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T Dated 20th June 2025 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.09.1999 and order of sentence dated 10.09.1999 passed in S.T. No. 773 of 1994 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 22 of 1994 by the court of learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties have informed that appellant no. 1 Tota Oraon has died during pendency of this appeal as 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 2 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) per the communication received from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sadar Police Station, Ranchi on 03.12.2023 and as such, the instant appeal as respect the appellant No.1 Tota Oraon has been abated vide order dated 22.12.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 3. In view of the order dated 22.12.2023, now the appeal survives only against appellant no.2 Maya Ram Oraon and appellant no.3 Ropna Oraon, who have been renumbered as appellant no.1 and 2 respectively. Factual Matrix 4. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads as under: The prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 13.02.1994 at about 9.00 p.m. whole family members of the prosecution party were inside their house. They have taken their meal. The deceased and others had gone to bed where the informant who is P.W.6 and his mother P.W.3 were yet not gone to their bed. The accused persons came to the house of the prosecution party making alarm and they were searching Daso. The P.W.3 and P.W.6 opened the door. The accused persons entered in the house and gave fist and slaps to the deceased in the house. The deceased in way to rescue himself from the clutches of the accused persons and ran from the house. All the accused persons chased the deceased and caught him near the house of Raju Oraon (P.W.5). The accused persons gave blow of Tanga and Dabli to the deceased. The inmates of the house of the deceased also 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 3 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) came to the place of occurrence, saw the occurrence and made alarm on which P.W.5 also came there from his house and other co-villagers also came there. The accused persons fled away from the spot. The prosecution asserted the motive behind the murder was dispute between the prosecution party and the accused persons regarding some land. The deceased and the accused Tota Oraon are Bhaiyad. The allegation against the deceased was from the beginning that deceased has taken larger share of the land in compare to the accused. For this on number of occasions the accused persons after taking drink came in the night at the house of the accused and abused in filthy languages. On the day of occurrence, the accused came in the same mood and delivered filthy language but on that day, they had come prepared for committing murder of the deceased and they started to assault deceased in the house. 5. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Dhusa Oraon before the S.I. A.K. Singh of Sadar P.S. on 13.02.1994 at 23.00 hrs at village Bandhgari, Sadar P.S. Case No. 22 of 1994 was registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Accordingly, the cognizance for the offence under the aforesaid sections was taken against the appellants and the case was committed to the court of sessions as per order dated 30.11.1994. 6. Charges were framed under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the above named appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 4 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) 7. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants: 9. Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the following grounds. i. There is contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses ii. The testimony of ocular witnesses is not in corroboration with the medical evidence, since, in the medical evidence injuries have been shown from hard and blunt substance while, the prosecution witness i.e., P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 have jointly deposed before the learned Trial Court that weapons which were in the hands of the appellants are sharp cutting weapon. iii. The submission has been made that the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 cannot be said to be trustworthy and cannot be said to eye witnesses as has been considered by the learned Trial Court , which has considered P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 are eye witnesses and based upon their testimonies the impugned judgment of conviction has been passed. 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 5 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) iv. It has been contended that the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 if compared with the testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W.7), it would be evident that whatever has been deposed by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 is quite distinct from their statement made before the Investigating Officer recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, deposition of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 appears to be improvement of the prosecution version Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction needs interference. Argument advanced on behalf of the State. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has supported the case of the prosecution by taking the following grounds: i. There is no error in the impugned judgment of conviction, since, the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.w.6 in entirety. ii. These three witnesses have consistently that they had seen the commission of crime committed by the appellants. iii. It has been contended that the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 are in corroboration with the testimony of the 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 6 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) Doctor (P.W.8) who has also found that the nature of injuries were found to be ante mortem. Learned counsel for the State, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and there is no legal point to interfere in the same. Appraisal & Findings 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and arguments advanced on their behalf. This Court has also gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment as also the materials available in the trial court record. 12. This Court is now to assess as to whether the judgment of conviction can be said to be proper in the light of the evidences of the witnesses as recorded in course of Trial. 13. This Court before answering the said issue is now proceeding to consider the testimonies of witnesses which have been recorded by learned trial Court. The learned trial court during the trial has altogether examined eight witnesses i.e., 1. P.W.1-Konki Orain 2. P.W.2—Bandhan Oraon 3. P.W.3-Jhirgi Orain 4. P.W.4-Etwa Tirkey 5. P.W.5- Raju Oraon 6. P.W.6-Dusha Oraon(informant of the case) 7. P.W.7- Chandeshwar Pandey ( Investigating Officer) 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 7 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) 8. P.W.8-Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu ( who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased) Apart from oral evidences, the prosecution has also adduced documentary evidences which are: 1. Ext.1-signature of Bandhan Oraon on the injury report 2. Ext.2-signature of Bandan Oraon on the seizure list 3. Ext.2/1-signature of Etwa Tirkey on the seizure list 4. Ext.3- signature of Bandhan Oraon on fardbeyan 5. Ext.3/1- fardbeyan of the informant 6. Ext.3/2- endorsement of S.I. A.K. Singh on the fardbeyan 7. Ext.4-Formal F.I.R 8. Ext.4/1-signature of S.I. A.K. Singh in the formal F.I.R 9. Ext.5- Seizure list of blood stained soil collected from the P.O 10. Ext.6- Inquest Report 11. Ext.6/1-signature on the inquest report 12. Ext.7- Postmortem examination 13. Ext.7/1-Signature of doctor (P.W.8) on the PM report P.W.1 Konki Orain- She is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of the informant Dusha Oraon (P.W.6). She has stated that at about 1.00 a.m. in the night appellant Tota Oraon, Ropna Oraon and Maya Ram Oraon came to their house. Tota Oraon was armed with Tangi and Ropna and Maya ram were armed with dabli. The appellants forcefully opened the door and started quarrelling with the 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 8 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) deceased. The deceased came out of the house and ran towards the house of Raju Oraon (P.W.5). Thereafter, the appellants also ran towards the deceased and assaulted the deceased with tangi and dabli due to which her father-in-law sustained injury and ultimately died. In her cross examination she has stated that deceased was assaulted by tangi and dabli on his head. The clothes of the deceased were soaked with blood. She has further stated that appellant Tota Oraon (now deceased) is brother of the deceased and appellant no.2 Ropna Oraon is the son-in-law of Tota Oraon. P.W.2 Bandhan Oraon has stated in his examination in chief that on hearing alarm he came out and saw the deceased Daso Oraon lying at the place of occurrence. He has put his signature on the inquest report which is marked as Ext.1. He has further stated that Police had seized blood stained soil and he has put his signature on the seizure list marked as Ext. 2. Police has also taken statement of Ghurna Oraon over which Ghurna Oraon has put his LTI. He has also put his signature over it marked as Ext. 3. In his cross examination he has stated that the dead body was about 15 steps from his house and there was no electricity in the village. P.W.3 Jhirgi Orain is the wife of the deceased and has supported the prosecution version by stating that the deceased was assaulted near the house of Raju Oraon, who has been examined as P.W.5. She has been cross-examined wherein she has stated that she was inside the house when the door was knocked to which she opened the door. Thereafter 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 9 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) the deceased was taken out from the house and the appellants had started assaulting him. Appellant no.1 Maya Ram Oraon assaulted with tangi and appellant no. 2 Ropna Oraon assaulted with dabli. Thereafter all of them fled away. She has also deposed that whether Appellant no.2 Ropna Oraon has assaulted with dabli or not, she could not able to see. P.W.4 Etwa Tirkey has stated that on hearing hulla he reached near the house of Raju Oraon and saw the dead body of the deceased Daso Oraon. He has put his signature on the seizure list marked as Ext.2/1. P.W.5 Raju Oraon has stated in his examination in chief that on hearing hulla he came out of his house and saw the appellants Maya Ram Oraon, Ropana Oraon and Tota Oraon were assaulting the deceased Daso Oraon with tangi and and dabli. Thereafter they fled away. On raising alarm many villagers came there. In the cross examination he has deposed that while he came out of the house he had found that deceased was already dead. P.W.6 Dusha Oraon is the informant of the case who has stated that the occurrence took place two years ago. At nine pm in the night he along with his mother Jhirgi and father Daso were about to sleep when the appellant Tota Oraon ( now deceased) came and threatened his father to kill him. Along with Tota Oraon, appellants Maya Ram Oraon and Ropna were also there. They asked to open the door to which he opened the door. Thereafter the appellants started assaulting his father with slap. His father somehow rescued himself and ran 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 10 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) towards the house of Raju Oraon (P.W.5) where the appellants assaulted his father with tanga and dabli. When he raised alarm villagers gathered there and the appellants fled away. They saw his father had sustained injury on the back side of his head and he was dead. In his cross examination he has stated that all the appellants started assaulting the deceased. The deceased was fleeing away by raising alarm to save him. It has further been deposed that the deceased reached near the house of Raju Oraon (P.W.5). He was the first person after the deceased who reached near the house of Raju Oraon and thereafter his mother also reached near the house of Raju Oraon and then Raju came out of his house. P.W.7 Chandeshwar Pandey is the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated that on the date of occurrence i.e., 13.02.1994, he was posted at the Sadar P.S., Ranchi. On receiving information, he along with other police officials reached at the place of occurrence and thereafter fardbeyan of the informant was taken by S.I. A.K. Singh. The endorsement of S.I A.K Singh is marked as Ext. 3/2. The signature of S.I. A.K. Singh in the Formal F.I.R. is marked as Ext. 4/1. The formal F.I.R is in the handwriting of constable Mathura Goswami marked as Ext. 4. It is stated by the Investigating Officer that he has inspected the place of occurrence which is near the house of Raju Oraon wherein the dead body of the deceased was lying. In cross examination he has stated that Jirgi Orain who has been examined as P.W.3 has not stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that the 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 11 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) deceased was assaulted by a tangi. The Investigating Officer has further deposed as recorded in para 6 that Dhusa Oraon (P.W.6) has also not stated that his wife Konki Orain, who has been examined as P.W.1 had stated about commission of crime by the appellants. It is further been stated that Dhusa Oraon (P.W.6) has not stated that when the appellant had asked him to open the door, he had opened the door. P.W.6 has also not stated before the Investigating Officer that all the three appellants had started slapping his father and his father had fled away for escaping his life. He has further stated that Dhusa Oraon has also not stated that when the appellant were assaulting his father near the house of Raju Oraon (P.W.5), they were crying “Bachao Bachao”. P.W.8 Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu who has conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased Daso Oraon and found following injuries. “1.Lacerated wound:- a) 3x1cmx soft tissue on left eye brow. b) 2x1 cm x soft tissue on left cheek prominence. c) 3x3 cm x bone deep on parietal region of head. d) 4x1 cm x scalp deep one right fronto parietal region of head. e) 4 x 2cm x scalp deep right occipital region of head. 2. On Internal examination he found defused contusion of right fronto parietal temporal scalp and occipital scalp. There is depressed fracture of right parietal bone measuring 5x3 cm area and crack fracture of right parietal bone. The fracture line extents to left parietal bone. 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 12 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) There is presence of Sub dural blood and blood clot over both sides of head. 3. In his opinion all the injuries are ante mortem caused by hard and blunt substance.” 14. This Court has gone through the testimony of the witnesses in entirety including the deposition of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor. 15. This Court after going through the impugned judgment has found that the impugned judgment is based upon the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6, who have been considered by the learned Trial Court to be eye witness. Therefore, discussion is required to be made of the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6. Further, the testimony of P.W.5 is also important in view of the fact that the place of occurrence is near his house. 16. It is evident from the testimony of P.W.1 wherein, in the examination in chief the prosecution story has been tried to be proved by disclosing the name of three appellants, which would be evident from para 1 of his deposition. This Court has also gone through the cross examination of the said witness wherein the fact which has been deposed in examination in chief, although has been tried to be corroborated at the relevant paragraph no. 8, 9 and 10. It is evident from deposition as recorded in para 8 that P.W.1 has deposed that the deceased was cut by tangi and Dabli over the head. It has further been recorded in para 9 that the cloth was full with blood. It has been 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 13 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) deposed in para 10 that the appellant Tota Oraon ( now deceased) is the brother of his father-in-law while appellant no.2 Ropna Oraon is the son-in-law of appellant Tota Oraon (now deceased). The relevant para 1, 8,9 and 10 are quoted hereunder: “1. मेरे सुसर का नाम दासो उरांव था। मœ अपने ससुर के साथ ही रहती थी Ťाम बांधगड़ी मŐ। मेरा ससुर दो वषŊ पहले मारा गया। उस समय मœ, मेरा पित, ससुर एवं सास सभी घर मŐ थे। करीब 1 बजे रात मŐ मेरे घर मŐ तोता उराँव, रोपना उरांव एवं माया राम उरांव आये। तोता के हाथ मŐ टांगी था। रोपना के हाथ मŐ दबली एवं मायाराम के हाथ मŐ दबली था। इनलोग आकर मेरे ससुर को िनकलने के िलए कहा। नहीं िनकले तो दरवाजा धके ल कर घर मŐ घुस गये एवं मेरे ससुर से झगड़ने लगे। मेरे ससुर घर से िनकले और राजु के घर की ओर भागे। मेरे ससुर के पीछे तीनों अिभयुƅ भी भागे और मेरे ससुर को दौड़कर तोता, रोपना एवं माया राम टांगी एवं दबली से मारे। मेरा सुसर चोट खाकर िगर गये एवं मर गये। 8. टांगी से काटा और दाबली से काटा था। मुड (िसर) मŐ काटा था। घर से बाहर खुन िगरा था। मेरे घर मŐ खुन नहीं िगरा था। राजु के घर के पास खुन िगरा था। 9. मेरे ससुर के कपड़ा लȅा मŐ खुन लगा थ। 10. तोता उरांव मेरे ससुर के भाई है। मेरा घर और तोता राम उरांव का घर एक ही जगह है। तोता की लड़की की शादी Ťाम सुंडी मŐ रोपना उरांव के साथ Šई है। सुंडी मŐ ही रोपना का खेती और घर है। मेरे शादी से पहले ही रोपना की शादी हो गयी है। तोता की लड़की और उसका दामाद रोपना मेरे ही गांव मŐ तोता उरावं के घर रहते है।“ 17. P.W.3 has deposed in his examination in chief by supporting the prosecution version. It has been deposed by him at para 1 that the deceased was assaulted near the house of Raju Oraon, who has been examined as P.W.5. She has been cross-examined wherein she has deposed at para 4 that she was inside the house when the door was knocked to which she opened the door. Thereafter the deceased was taken out from the house and the appellants had started assaulting him. Appellant no.1 Maya Ram assaulted with tangi and appellant no. 2 Ropna Oraon assaulted with dabli. Thereafter all of them fled away. She has also deposed that whether Appellant no.2 Ropna Oraon has assaulted with dabli or not, she could not able to see. The relevant 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 14 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) para 1 and 4 are quoted here under: “1. आज से दो वषŊ पहले की बात है। 9 बजे राũी को मœ घर मŐ थी। मेरे साथ घर मŐ एतवारी, कोंकी, घुˣा और मेरा पित दासो उरांव थे। जाकर िकवाड़ खोलने के िलए तोता उरांव कहा तो िकवाड़ खोल दी तो देखी िक तोता, रोपना और माया राम थे। इनलोग दासो के उपर हाथ चलाने लगा। दासो भागने लगा मœ भी पीछे - पीछे जाने लगी तो देखी िक राजू के घर के पास टांगा और दबली से दासो को ये लोग मारकर भाग गये। दोन और टांड के चलते मारपीट िकये थे। 4. नव बजे रात को बȅी बुझाकर सोने जा रहे थŐ दासो एतवारी सोये थे पर लड़का िकवाड़ बंद कर बैठा था मœ भी बैठी ही थी। मœ ही दरवाजा खोली थी। मेरे घर मŐ एक ही कोठरी है वह भी बŠत छोटा हœ उसी मŐ िकसी तरह सभी कोई िमलकर सोते है। घर के अȽर कु छ नहीं िकया। ढाबा मŐ ही मारपीट करने लगा। टांगा से मायाराम मारा। रोपना दबली िलया था। मेरे पŠंचते ही मारकर चला गया था इसिलए रोपना दबली से मारा िक नहीं मœ नहीं देखी। मœ पŠंची तो मœ अपने आदमी को िगरा देखी और मर चुका था पानी भी नहीं दे सकी।“ 18. P.W.6 who is also considered to be eye witness and has supported the prosecution version by deposing in his examination in chief at para 1 that the occurrence took place two years ago. At nine pm in the night, he along with his mother Jhirgi and father Daso were about to sleep when the appellant Tota Oraon came and threatened his father to kill him. Along with Tota Oraon, appellants Maya Ram Oraon and Ropna Oraonwere also there. They asked to open the door to which he opened the door. Thereafter the appellants started assaulting his father with slap. His father somehow rescued himself and ran towards the house of Raju Oraon (P.W.5) where the appellants assaulted his father with tanga and dabli. When he raised alarm villagers gathered there and the appellants fled away. They saw his father had sustained injury on the back side of his head and he was dead. In his cross examination he has stated that all the appellants started assaulting the deceased. The deceased was fleeing away by raising alarm to save him. It has further been deposed that the 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 15 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) deceased reached near the house of Raju Oraon (P.W.5). He was the first person after the deceased who reached near the house of Raju Oraon and thereafter his mother also reached near the house of Raju Oraon and then Raju came out of his house. He has further deposed that when Bandhan had reached the house of Raju Oraon, his father was still crying. The relevant Para 1 and para 7 are quoted hereunder: 1. दो वषŊ पहले की घटना है। रात को 9 बजे मœ अपने घर मŐ अपनी माँ िझरगी एवं िपता दासो और अपनी पȉी कोंकी उरांवनी के साथ था। उस समय खाना खाकर सोने ही वाले थे िक तोता उरांव आकर हʟा करने लगा िक दासो को आज जान ले लेगŐ। उसके साथ रोपना और माया राम उरांव भी साथ मŐ थे। इनलोग दरवाजा खोलने कहा तो मœ दरवाजा खोल िदया। इनलोग मेरे िपता दासो को थɔड़ से मारपीट करने लगा। मेरा िपता इनलोगों से छु डकर भागे तो ये तीनों उनको िपछा िकया और राजु के घर के पास पकड़ िलये। इनलोग राजु के घर के पास टांगा और दबली से मेरे िपता को मारने लगे। हमलोग बचाओ-बचाओं िचʟाने लगे। इसपर गांव वाले जुट गये और मारने वाले तीनों अभुि◌ƅ भाग गये। मœ पास जाकर अपने िपता को देखा वे मर चुके थŐ मेरे िपता के िसर मŐ पीछे की ओर चोट लगा था। जमीन पर भी खुन िगरा था। टांड और दोन जमीन के िलए झगड़ा था इसिलए मेरे िपता को ये लोग मारपीट िकये। गांव मŐ पुिलस आयी तो मœ यही बयान िदया था िजसे पुिलस िलखी थी । मœ उसपर LTI िदया था और बंधन गवाही के ŝप मŐ सही िकया था। 7. राजु के घर के पास भी मेरा िपता बचाओ-बचाओं िचʟा रहे थŐ। मœ पŠंचा तब भी िचʟा रहे थे। राजु के घर के बाद मŐ िडबरी बȅी तब लाया जब मœ हʟा करने लगा। मœ ही सबसे पहले पŠंचा था। उसके बाद मेरी माँ आयी थी राजु के घर के पास। उसके बाद राजु िनकला था। उसके बाद बंधन आया था। उसके बाद सभी गांव वाले आये थे। बंधन पŠंचा तब भी मेरा िपता िचʟा रहे थे। 19. This Court has considered the testimony of P.W.5, who although in examination in chief, has supported the prosecution version to have seen the deceased being assaulted by these appellants but in the cross examination he has not supported to what he has stated in the examination in chief as he has deposed in cross examinatioin that while he came out of the house, he had found that deceased was already dead. 20. This Court is now proceeding to assess the reliability of the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 who according to the learned 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 16 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) Trial Court, based upon the prosecution case, have been considered to be eye witness. 21. This Court, in order to have an assessment of these three witnesses, have gone through the testimony of P.W.7 so as to consider as to whether the statements of these witnesses recorded at the initial stage of the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were in consonance with their deposition recorded at the time of trial. The relevant part has been considered by this Court, which has been recorded in para 6 of the testimony of P.W.7 wherein he has categorically stated that whatever has been deposed by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 is different from what they have stated at the time of recording their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 22. It is stated by the Investigating Officer that Jhirgi Orain who has been examined as P.W.3 has not stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that the deceased was assaulted by a tangi. The Investigating Officer has further deposed as recorded in para 6 that Dhusa Oraon (P.W.6) has also not stated that his wife Konki Orain, who has been examined as P.W.1, had stated about commission of crime by the appellants. 23. It is further been stated that Dhusa Oraon (P.W.6) has not stated that when the appellant had asked him to open the door, he had opened the door. P.W.6 has also not stated before the Investigating Officer that all the three appellants had started slapping his father and his father had fled away for escaping his life. He has further stated that Dhusa 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 17 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) Oraon has also not stated that when the appellants were assaulting his father near the house of Raju Oraon (P.W.5), they were crying “Bachao Bachao”. For reference para 6 of testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) is quoted hereunder: 6. मुदालय का घर 14.02.94 को सुबह 3 बजे सचŊ िकया था िकȶु कोई भी आपिȅ का सामान नहीं िमला और न इस कांड को कोई भी Ƒू िमला। िकȶु मुदालय लोग घर पर ही िमल गए। मœने िझंगरी उरांइन का बयान उसके घर पर िलया। िझंगनी ने अपने बयान मŐ टांगी से मारने की बात नहीं की। मœने राजु उरांव का बयान िलया उसने मेरे सामने ऐसा नहीं कहा था िक जब मै। पŠंचा तब िझंगनी उराइन कोंकी उराइन और घुसा उरांव पŠंच चुके थे। राजु उरांव ऐसा भी नहीं कहा था िक बंधन, एतवा ितकŎ भी और गांव के बŠत लोग जुट गए थे। मुदई घुसा उरांव मेरे सामने ऐसा नहीं कहा िक मेरी पȉी कोंकी थी। यह बात पुिलस को बतलाया था। घुसा उरांव मेरे सामने बयान मŐ ऐसा नहीं कहा था िक जब अिभयुƅ दरवाजा खोलने कहा तो मŐ दरवाजा खोल िदया। घूसा उरांव ऐसा भी नहीं कहा था िक तीनों अिभयुƅ मेरा िपता को थɔड़ से मारपीट करने लगे और मेरे िपता छू टकर भागे। घुसा उरांव ऐसा भी नहीं कहा था िक अिभयुƅ गण राजु के घर के पास मेरे िपता को टांगा से मारने लगा िक हमलोग बचाओ-बचाओं िचʟाने लगे। ऐसी बात नहीं है िक मœने ũुिटपूणŊ अनुसंधान िकया है और इसी कारण असल अपराधी नहीं पकड़ाया एवं गलत लोगों पर आरोप पũ समिपŊत िकया। 24. Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu has been examined as P.W.8 who has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Daso Oraon and found the following injuries: “1. Lacerated wound:- a) 3x1cmx soft tissue on left eye brow. b) 2x1 cm x soft tissue on left cheek prominence. c) 3x3 cm x bone deep on parietal region of head. d) 4x1 cm x scalp deep one right fronto parietal region of head. e) 4 x 2cm x scalp deep right occipital region of head. 2. On Internal examination I found defused contusion of right fronto parietal temporal scalp and occipital scalp. There is depressed fracture of right parietal bone measuring 5x3 cm area and crack fracture of right parietal bone. The fracture line extents to left parietal bone. There is presence of Sub dural blood and blood clot over both sides of head. 3.In my opinion all the injuries are ante mortem caused by hard and blunt substance.” 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 18 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) On consideration of the testimony of the doctor, it appears that the doctor has opined that there is depressed fracture of right parietal bone measuring 5x3 cm area and crack fracture of right parietal bone. Though, opinion has been given that all the injuries are ante mortem caused by hard and blunt substance. In the cross examination the doctor has opined that none of the injuries are by sharp cutting edge of the weapon. Such injuries are possible even by lathi or iron rod. Such injuries cannot be inflicted by fall on the rock. 25. Thus, on consideration of the testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W.7), we have found whatever has been said by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6, appears to be improvement in the prosecution version, since, it has been admitted by the Investigating Officer that whatever has been deposed by the P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6, no such narration of the incident / occurrence was narrated by these witnesses at the time of recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as referred in para 6 of the testimony of P.W.7 recorded herein above. 26. The issue of enmity appears to be available on record. We are conscious that enmity is double edged sword which could go in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defence depending upon the entirety of the circumstances. 27. We are also conscious that the medical evidence is not allowed to prevail upon the ocular evidences but equally the law is settled that the assessment of ocular witness or the medical evidence is to be taken into consideration by considering it in entirety to assess as to whether 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 19 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) the medical evidence is to be discarded over the ocular witness or the ocular witness, if not found to be trustworthy then the aid of the medical evidence is taken for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond shadow of reasonable doubt or there is an iota of benefit of doubt in the prosecution version. 28. The law is well settled that the conviction of a person can only be made if the charge has been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and if there is any doubt in the prosecution version then the benefit must be given to the accused persons. Reference is made to the judgment Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454, wherein, at paragraph-22, it has been held as under:- "22. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is much more than the level of reasonable doubt. We are aware that acquitting the accused in a case of this nature is not a matter of satisfaction for all concerned. At the same time we remind ourselves of the time- tested rule that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. We really entertain doubt about the involvement of the appellants in the crime." 29. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98, has held at paragraph-26 as under:- "26. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court we feel that the High Court has failed to understand the fact that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 20 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) part of the investigating agency and the evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis for conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt." 30. Further, the principle of 'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of 'benefit of doubt' can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96, wherein, it has been held at paragraph-7 as under: - "7. The High Court had failed to consider the implication of the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the complicity of Bhagirath particularly when the High Court found their evidence reliable. The benefit of doubt was given to Bhagirath "as a matter of abundant caution". Unfortunately, the High Court did not point out the area where there is such a doubt. Any restraint by way of abundant caution need not be entangled with the concept of the benefit of doubt. Abundant caution is always desirable in all spheres of human activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused." 31. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka (Supra) at paragraph32 and 33 has held as under:- "32. --- --- The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt. 33. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by Bentham, "witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.--- - 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 21 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) 32. It needs to refer herein that The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down the principle that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, for reference, paragraph 6 thereof requires to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :- “6. ------The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. —" 33. It needs to refer herein before laying down the aforesaid view, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be referred which read hereunder as: “163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.---" 34. Now re-adverting to the fact of the instant case wherein the doctor has given his opinion that the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt substance contrary to what has been deposed by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 who have stated that the deceased appellant no.1 Tota Oraon was having tangi while appellant no.2 and 3 armed with dabli. Learned 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 22 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) A.P.P. has not disputed that either tangi or dabli are not hard and blunt substance but sharp cutting weapon. The prosecution has tried to prove the case as per the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 that the appellant no.1 Tota Oraon (now deceased) had assaulted by tangi while appellant no.2 and 3 assaulted by dabli. Therefore, even accepting their version then incised wound or sharp cutting injury ought to have been found in the dead body of the deceased but the doctor has not found any sharp cutting injury of incised wound rather the injuries were found to be lacerated in nature and said to be there by hard and blunt substance. 35. Therefore, this Court has found that the learned trial court has relied upon the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 without weighing the testimony of P.W.7 and P.W.5 which is contrary to the law that the testimony is to be taken into consideration in entirety. 36. This Court, considering the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidences in entirety and solely relying upon the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 has convicted the appellant ignoring the testimony of P.W.7 who has totally disputed the version of P.W.1, 3 and 6 while referring to statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the testimony of the doctor. 37. This Court therefore is of the view that the learned Trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the evidences of the witnesses in its entirety and hence the impugned judgment of conviction requires interference by this Court. 2025:JHHC:16706-DB 23 Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999(R) 38. Accordingly, impugned judgment dated 07.09.1999 and order of sentence dated 10.09.1999 passed in S.T. No. 773 of 1994 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 22 of 1994 by the court of learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi are set aside. The appellant namely Maya Ram Oraon and appellant namely Ropna Oraon are discharged from their criminal liability. 39. In the result, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. 40. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 20th June, 2025 A. Mohanty/AFR