Jharkhand High Court
Jeetwahan Patar @ Jitwahan Patar @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.310 of 2016
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 28.01.2016
and order of sentence dated 30.01.2016 passed by Learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial
No.492 of 2014)
------
Jeetwahan Patar @ Jitwahan Patar @ Jeetbahan Patar, son of Shri
Rajendra Patar, resident of Village Gango, P.O. Rargaon, P.S.
Tamar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
By Court, :
21st October, 2024
The instant Criminal Appeal has been taken up today
for final hearing.
Accordingly, this interlocutory application for
suspension of sentence and to release the appellant on bail is
hereby dismissed.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.310 of 2016
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated
28.01.2016 and order of sentence dated 30.01.2016 passed by
Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial
No.492 of 2014, 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. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel representing
the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted only
on the basis of sole testimony of P.W.-4. He further submits that
that P.W.-4 in his cross-examination has stated that there is a
problem with his eye sight. He submits that the conduct of this
witness suggests that the entire case is false as he has left the
dead body at the place of occurrence, and has not narrated the
fact of commission of murder to any of the villagers, rather
disclosed the same to his brothers who reached there at night. He
further submits that the motive which has been set forth by the
prosecution is that the deceased was being branded as a witch but
there is no complaint or report at any point of time given by this
informant either to the Mukhiya or to the police to that effect. He
further submits that there is no conviction under Section 4/5 of
The Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, which would
suggest that the motive which has been sought to be raised by the
prosecution has got no legs to stand.
4. Mr. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. representing the State
submits that P.W.-4 is an eye witness and there is nothing in his
evidence or in the cross-examination to disbelieve him. He submits
that even on the basis of testimony of the sole eye witness, if he is
reliable, conviction can be sustained. In this case, there is no
material to suggest that this witness is an unreliable witness.
5. The F.I.R. is at the instance of P.W.-4. He stated that he
was in a field with his wife collecting firewood when this appellant
came armed with a farsa assaulted his wife (deceased) on the
neck and back 2-3 times, as a result of which she fell and died. He
stated that he is an old person and is disabled as a result of which
he could not save his wife. She was assaulted as this appellant has
branded her as a witch.
6. The F.I.R. is registered under Section 302 IPC read with
Section 4/5 of The Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
appellant. Thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi
took cognizance of offence against the appellant under Section
302 IPC and Section 4/5 of The Prevention of Witch (Daain)
Practices Act and the case was transferred to the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, who committed the case
record to the Court of Session Judge, Ranchi.
7. The prosecution has altogether examined 08 witnesses.
8. The most important witness in this case is P.W.-4. P.W.-
4 namely Mochi Munda (informant) in his evidence stated that on
the fateful day, he and his wife were picking firewood in the field
when in the evening at about 4 O' Clock, this appellant came and
assaulted the deceased stating that no one now can save her. He
further stated that 3 or 4 blows of farsa were given on her neck
and back, as a result of which she died. In his cross-examination,
he stated that he returned home and later at night narrated the
entire fact to his brothers. He further stated that he did not carry
the dead body to his house and kept the same where the
occurrence had taken place. He further stated that he does not
have cataract but stated that he can see up to 25 feet to 30 feet.
Nothing more is extracted from his evidence which would suggest
that he is an unreliable witness. He admitted that he is the person
on whose fardbeyan the F.I.R. was registered.
9. If we analyse the statement of P.W.-4 properly, we
would find that though he has stated that he is aged person but
the fact remains that he is disabled but can see upto 25 feet to 30
feet. From the evidence, it is clear that he and his wife were
collecting firewood when this appellant came and assaulted the
deceased with sharp cutting weapon giving blow on her neck. It is
also not a case that both the deceased and this informant witness
were at such a distance that the witness could not see and identify
the assailant. So we hold, that since the informant has stated that
he can see up to distance of 25 feet to 30 feet, he is the eye
witness and he has seen this appellant committing murder of the
deceased.
10. Now, on the point of homicidal death, let us come to
the evidence of P.W.-6, who is the Doctor and who conducted the
post-mortem. He has found four incised wound on the body of the
deceased, which are as follows:-
(i) Average built, rigor mortis was present all over the
body, abdomen slightly distended, dry blood stain
over face, neck, back of chest and clothes.
Incised wound:-
(i) 10 cm x 2 cm into bone deep over back of neck
upper part adjoining left side of cheek cutting of
soft tissue, blood vessels, second cervical
vertebra completely and left side of maxilla
bone. There is blood and blood clot over soft
and bony tissue.
(ii) 5 cm x 1 cm soft tissue over left scapula region
(iii) 6 cm x 2 cm into soft tissue over right scapula
region
(iv) 20 cm x 2 cm into bone deep over back of chest
lower part cutting of soft tissue, thoracic eight
vertebra left side, eight ribs posterior and
cutting of liver, spleen, posteriorly.
Presence of blood and blood clot of both
thoraco abdominal cavity.
The Doctor opined that (i) above noted incised wounds
are ante-mortem, (ii) caused by heavy sharp cutting weapons and
(iii) death is due to haemorrhagic shock, as a result of above
noted incised wounds. The post-mortem report has been marked
as Ext.5.
11. From the evidence of the Doctor, we find that the death
is homicidal. Further, the injury report also suggests that the
deceased was assaulted on the neck and the back by sharp cutting
weapon. In the cross-examination, this witness P.W.-4 has clearly
stated that at the place of occurrence save and except the
appellant and his wife no one was there. Thus, evidence of other
witnesses is formal in nature and is of no relevance.
12. It is the quality of the witness which should be taken
into account and not the quantity. Even on the basis of testimony
of the sole-eye witness, if the eye witness is reliable, the
conviction can be sustained.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh
v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165, in
para-16 has held as hereunder:-
"16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two appellant-
accused recorded by the two courts below is based on sole
testimony of eyewitness P.W 1. As a general rule the court
can and may act on the testimony of single eyewitness
provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal
impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony
of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the
Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the
testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. It is not
the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The
time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be
weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the
edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is
whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy or otherwise [see Sunil Kumar v.
State (NCT of Delhi) [Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2003) 11 SCC 367 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1055] ].
13. So far as the motive is concerned, though, it is the
prosecution case that the deceased was being branded as a witch
by this appellant but the fact remains that this appellant was not
convicted under the provisions of Section 4/5 of The Prevention of
Witch (Daain) Practices Act. In our view, the same is of no
consequence as the P.W.-4 is the eye witness to the said
occurrence who has seen the deceased committing the murder of
his wife. When there is an eye-witness to the occurrence of
murder, establishing motive loses its relevance as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1473.
14. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this
Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of
conviction dated 28.01.2016 and order of sentence dated
30.01.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.492 of 2014, are hereby affirmed.
15. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court
concerned.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 21/10/2024
AFR / Prashant
