Jharkhand High Court
Kartik Patro @ Kartik Patar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1339 of 2016
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 06.10.2016 passed by Learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, in Sessions Trial No.97
of 2016)
------
Kartik Patro @ Kartik Patar, son of Basant Patro @ Basanta Patar,
resident of Village Ichra, P.O. & P.S. Jadugora, District East
Singhbhum. ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
By Court, :
11th November, 2024
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 06.10.2016 passed by Learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, in Sessions Trial No.97 of
2016, whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for
offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 302 I.P.C.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
A.P.P. for the State and perused the materials available on record.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits
that the case rests on the sole witness who is P.W.5 - Basant
Patro, but the said witness is not a reliable witness. It is his case
that due to grudge against this appellant, P.W.-5 has deposed
against him. He also submits that the murder weapon which is the
axe has not been recovered and even if the prosecution version is
accepted, the case will fall within the ambit of Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC. He also submits that at best the appellant could
have been convicted under Part-II of Section 304 IPC and not
under Section 302 IPC.
4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State vehemently
opposes the Criminal Appeal and submits that P.W.-5 is none but
the father of the appellant and the deceased is the mother. This is
a case where this appellant committed the murder of his mother.
P.W.-5 is a reliable witness and there is no ground as to why he
will depose against his son. The injury also suggests the
magnitude of the blow which gives the impression that there was
intention on part of this appellant to commit murder of the
deceased.
5. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of P.W.-
5 who is the father of this appellant. He stated that on
22.11.2015, there was an election of the Village Panchayat. This
appellant who was residing elsewhere came to the house of the
informant and searched for his mother. Thereafter, there was a hot
exchange between the mother and the son upon which, the
appellant assaulted on the head of the deceased resulting in her
death.
6. The Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem is
P.W.-6. She found the following injuries:-
"I. Lacerated wound on right temporal region 4 cm x 2
cm x 10 cm.
II. Fracture of right temporal bone. Brain tissue
protruding out from the wound. Blood clots present around
the wound. Intracath was present on right hand. Brain
tissue lacerated and congested."
As per her opinion, all the injuries were ante mortem in
nature and the cause of death was haemorrhage and head injury.
The post-mortem report was marked as Ext.3. In cross-
examination, she categorically stated that these types of injuries
may not be caused due to fall.
7. From the post-mortem report and the evidence of the
Doctor, we find that the death is homicidal. The impact of the
injury was such that the brain tissues protruded out from the
wound. This evidence proves the death to be homicidal.
8. The next important witness is P.W.-5 who is the eye
witness to the said occurrence. He stated that on the date of
occurrence at 03:30 P.M., this appellant came to their house and
there was quarrel between this appellant and the deceased. This
appellant with the stone (grinding stone which is used for grinding
spices) chased his mother. This witness stopped him when the
appellant took an axe and assaulted the deceased on her head.
The deceased was taken to the hospital where she was declared
dead. In cross-examination, there is nothing which demolishes his
statement. From the aforesaid evidence, it is proved that it is this
appellant who has assaulted the deceased. The assault was on the
vital part of the body i.e. on the head and that too by a dangerous
weapon.
9. From the nature of the injury and the statement given
by P.W.-5, we are of the opinion that the intention and knowledge
of the appellant to commit murder is present in this case. The
injury which was found is sufficient to cause death in normal
course. Though the other witnesses who are the brother and
sister-in-law of this appellant have been declared hostile but the
fact that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of
P.W.-5 who is none but the father of the appellant. The defence
has not brought on any material to suggest that why his father
would depose falsely against his son. It is well settled that on the
testimony of a sole credible eye witness, conviction can be
sustained. This witness is a credible witness.
10. Considering what has been held above, we find no
merit in this appeal as the Trial Court has considered all these
aspects and has properly appreciated the evidence and has arrived
at a conclusion that it is this appellant who has committed the
murder.
11. In view of the evidence of the direct eye-witness i.e.
P.W.-5, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 06.10.2016 passed by Learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, in Sessions Trial No.97 of
2016, is hereby affirmed.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
13. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court
concerned.
14. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 11/11/2024
NAFR / Prashant
