SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, Feb 11: The Jharkhand High Court today converted a murder conviction into culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a 2008 family dispute case, reducing the life sentence of two men to the period already undergone — over 12 years — and ordering their release.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai passed the judgment in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 210 and 232 of 2017.
The appellants, Baiju Oraon and his son Somra Oraon, were convicted by a Ranchi trial court in 2016 for the murder of Fagu Oraon — Baiju’s brother — in the Chanho police station area of Ranchi district and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Dispute Over House Construction Led to Killing
The prosecution’s case was that on March 20, 2008, a quarrel broke out between Fagu Oraon and his brother Baiju over the construction of a new mud house on partitioned family land. The altercation escalated into violence, during which Baiju and his son Somra allegedly assaulted Fagu with a sword and a baluwa (sharp-edged weapon), leading to his death.
The deceased’s wife, who was the informant and sole eyewitness, stated that a scuffle first took place between the brothers. She testified that the accused were initially unarmed and later brought weapons from their house before attacking the deceased.
Medical evidence confirmed multiple incised wounds on vital parts of the body, including the head and neck, caused by a sharp-cutting weapon.
No Premeditation, Sudden Fight: High Court
While examining whether the offence fell under Section 302 (murder) or Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC, the High Court analysed both the evidence and Supreme Court precedents on the distinction between the two offences.
The Bench highlighted several crucial factors:
- The parties belonged to the same family.
- The incident arose out of a sudden quarrel over house construction.
- The accused were initially unarmed and brought weapons only after the scuffle began.
- There was no evidence of prior planning or premeditation.
- The accused were arrested on the spot and did not attempt to flee.
The Court observed that the killing occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden fight between close relatives.
Conduct After Crime Considered Relevant
A significant circumstance noted by the Bench was that the accused did not flee the scene after the assault. They were arrested on the spot itself.
Notably, in tribal areas, accused persons do not always attempt to escape after an incident. There have been instances where individuals have even surrendered voluntarily. While such conduct does not absolve criminal liability, it can become relevant in assessing intention and premeditation.
In the present case, the fact that the accused remained at the scene weighed with the Court while determining whether there was a deliberate intention to commit murder.
Conviction Modified Under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
Applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC — which deals with culpable homicide committed in a sudden fight without premeditation and without taking undue advantage — the High Court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
However, the conviction of Somra Oraon under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon) was upheld.
Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone
Considering that the appellants had already spent more than 12 years in jail, the Court reduced their sentence to the period already undergone and directed that they be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The appeals were dismissed with modification in conviction and sentence.