ALBER ORAON versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 23-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 330 
ALBER ORAON 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1868-1869 of 2012) 
APRIL 23, 2014. 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 201 - Murder- Appellant was 
assigned the construction of house by the deceased woman 
C - They developed intimacy and appellant started living with 
her - Informant found that deceased woman and her children 
not seen for few days by neighbours - Their dead bodies 
exhumed from the soak pit next to the toilet of the house of 
deceased woman - Conviction and death sentence by courts 
D below - Held: No interference with the conviction and sentence 
- The convict did not offer convincing explanation as to why 
he did not report prolonged absence of the deceased to the 
police - The convict was a mason and also a civil-works 
contractor, and was, therefore, competent to dig a soak-pit and 
E 
dispose of the three bodies in that soak-pit and then make a 
brick covering thereon - There was not an iota of doubt as to 
his living with the deceased in the same house as her husband 
- The factum of his having executed documents indicative of 
his marriage to. the deceased as also her 'Declaration' to 
F 
transfer her property to him, in the event of her death provided 
compelling motive for his having committed the crime of 
murdering her and her two minor children - The convict was 
logically. found, beyond reasonable doubt, to have committed 
the murder of the three deceased - Sentence uls.201 not 
G interfered with -As regards offence uls.302, though the action 
of the convict was extremely brutal, grotesque diabolical and 
revolting, incarceration for a further period of 30 years, without 
remission, in addition to the sentence already undergone 
H 
330 
ALBER ORAON v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 
331 
would be appropriate punishment in the facts and A 
circumstances of the case - Sentence/Sentencing. 
The prosecution case was that the deceased woman 
assigned the work of construction of her house to the 
appellant-convict. In the course of the construction of the 8 
house the convict and the deceased woman developed 
intimacy and the convict started living with her portraying 
as her husband. The informant and his aunt were regular 
visitor in the house of the deceased woman. On one such 
visit the informant learnt from the neighbourhood that in C 
the recent past only the convict was seen in the house. 
On ehq~iry from the convict, no proper information 
regarding the deceased woman and her two minor 
children was obtained. The matter was reported to police. 
On investigation, highly decomposed bodies of a woman 
and two children were discovered and exhumed from the D 
soak pit next to the toilet of the house of the deceased 
woman. 
The trial court found the convict guilty for offence 
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and passed death E 
sentence. The High court confirmed conviction and death 
sentence. The instant appeal was filed challenging the 
order of the High Court. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the bodies of the three 
deceased victims were exhumed after three to six weeks 
F . 
of their unnatural death and no convincing explanation 
was offered by the convict as to why he did not report 
their prolonged absence to the police. The convict was G 
a mason and also a civil-works contractor, and was, 
therefore, competent to dig a soak-pit and dispose of the 
three bodies in- that soak-pit and then make a brick 
covering thereon. There was not an iota of doubt as to 
his living with the deceased in the same house as her H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
husband, even though he was already married. The 
factum of his having executed documents indicative of 
his marriage to the deceased as also her 'Declaration' to 
transfer her property to him, in the event of her death 
provide compelling motive for his having committed the 
s crime of murdering her and her two minor children. The 
convict was logically found, beyond reasonable doubt, 
to have committed the murder of the three deceased. 
[Para 7] [338-A-E] 
Trimukh vs State 2006 (10) SCC 681: 2006 (7) Suppl. 
C SCR 156; Raj Kumar vs State (2007) (1) SCC 433; State vs 
Jaggu 2008 (12) SCC 51: 2008 AIR 982; Sushi/ Kumar vs 
State of Punjab 2009 (10) SCC 434: 2010 AIR 832; Swamy 
Shraddananda vs State of Karnataka 2008 (13) SCC 767: 
2008 (11) SCR 93 - referred to. 
D 
2. The Sessions Judge found the convict guilty 
under Section 302
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.