Jharkhand High Court
Rintu Karmakar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2017 and order of
sentence dated 23.01.2017 passed by learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2015)
----
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.626 of 2017
-----
Rintu Karmakar, son of late Laxman Karmakar, resident of village
Sindriaam, Jhatijharna, PO and PS Galudih, District East Singhbhum
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP
.........
JUDGMENT
CAV on : 15.10.2024 Pronounced on : 25th October 2024
Per Ananda Sen, J.: This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of
conviction dated 18.01.2017 and order of sentence dated
23.01.2017 in Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2015 whereby and
whereunder learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Ghatsila convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life under
Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from
the prosecution case it would be substantiated that the
occurrence had taken place in a densely populated area but
surprisingly not even a single independent witness has been
examined in this case. Witnesses in support of the prosecution
case are interested witnesses which gives a death blow to the
prosecution. Further he submits that from the evidence it would
be clear that the assault had taken place on the spur of the
moment and there was no intention of the appellant to commit
murder of the deceased, which cannot attract section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. The place of occurrence has also not been
proved. None of the CRPF personnel, before whom this
appellant had gone with the head of the deceased and the
murder weapon, has been examined by the prosecution. Even
the statement of the daughter of this appellant, if scrutinized,
will lead to the only conclusion that she is not an eye witness.
3. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the
appellant himself had gone and admitted his guilt before the
CRPF personnel and he was arrested from that place of
occurrence along with the head of the deceased. The appellant is
none but the husband of the deceased and his daughter has also
supported the prosecution case.
4. The FIR is at the instance of Kalicharan Bhumij who is the
Choukidar. He stated that on 17.12.2014 at about 11:30 hours he
received information that in village Sindriaam one person had
committed murder of his wife with the help of an axe and
severed her neck from the torso. On receiving the said
information the informant went to the village Sindriaam and
came to know that this appellant after committing murder of his
wife by severing her neck with the help of axe and pahsul (sharp
cutting weapon) had taken the head and the axe to the CRPF
camp. He saw the headless body lying on the bed and there was
pool of blood on the bed and beneath. He made an inquiry from
the neighbours, then he could come to know that this appellant
after committing murder of the deceased had taken the head and
the murder weapon to the CRPF camp. Informant then went to
the camp and saw this appellant carrying the head of the
deceased by the hair in the one hand and standing with the axe.
On query he confessed that he had committed murder of the
deceased as the deceased was abusing him and he lost control
thus had committed the murder. He admitted his guilt. On the
basis of the statement of Kalicharan Bhumij, FIR was registered
being Galudih PS Case No. 45 of 2014 under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal.
6. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on
record, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the
Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded.
7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 9 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution, who are:-
i. PW1 :- Kalicharan Bhumij
ii. PW2 :- Nagendra Singh
iii. PW3 :- Dhuna Munda
iv. PW4 :- Gurubari Karmakar
v. PW5 :- Bhajohari Munda
vi. PW6:- Kanhu Sabar
vii. PW7:- Dr. Upendra Prasad
viii.PW8:- Srimati Karmkar
ix. PW9:- Mahendra Nath Pathak
8. To prove homicidal death the prosecution has examined
the doctor who is PW7. He found the following injuries:
(i) head and neck separated at the base of neck
(ii) fracture of left hand between shoulder and elbow joint.
On dissection all the part of the neck, chin, mussel, vessels,
trachea, esophagus, cervical vertebra and spinal cord cut at the
base of the neck.
Injuries are antemortem and caused by hard and blunt
weapon. Cause of death :- shock and hemorrhage.
The postmortem report was marked as Exhibit-2. From the
aforesaid postmortem report and the evidence of the doctor, we
find the fact that the head of the deceased was chopped out, has
been proved. Thus the prosecution case of homicidal death and
chopping of the head of the deceased has been proved by the
prosecution.
9. PW1 is the informant. He supported his statement which is
the basis of the First Information Report. He stated that on
receiving information over telephone by a villager that one
person has chopped the head of his wife and taking the head of
his wife, he had gone to the CRPF Camp, he went to the village
Sindriaam. He saw the headless body of the women lying in the
house. He further submitted that when he went to CRPF Camp,
he found this appellant standing with the head of his wife and
blood stained axe. There is nothing to disbelieve his statement.
Thus, from his evidence, we find that he is an eye witness to the
part of the occurrence i.e. the appellant was present in the CRPF
Camp carrying the head of the deceased.
PW9 is the Investigating Officer. He also stated that he
received information from the CRPF Camp about the fact that
this appellant was in the CRPF Camp with the head of his wife.
He went there and found this appellant with the head of his wife
and one axe in his hand. His statement corroborates the
statement of the informant. Thus, both these witnesses prove the
fact that the appellant was carrying the head of the deceased and
the fact that he was arrested from the CRPF Camp was also
substantiated.
10. PW4 is Gurubari Karmakar. She is the daughter of this
appellant and the deceased. She stated that she had seen the
dead body of her mother lying on the cot without the head and
her father had taken the head and the axe along with him to the
police station. She stated that she along with another sister PW8
went to work in the paddy field and in the house only her father
and mother were there. Though PW8 has been declared hostile
but the fact which emerges from the deposition of PW4 is that
when she had gone out to work it was only this appellant and
the deceased who were present in the house. Thus from their
statement it is proved that at the time of occurrence there were
only this appellant and the deceased in the house and none else.
11. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, we find that
there are two place of occurrence. First place of occurrence is the
house of the deceased where she was murdered and the second
is the CRPF Camp where the appellant was found present with
the head of the deceased.
The investigating officer, informant and PW4 clearly
support the first place of occurrence which is the house of the
deceased as admittedly headless body was seized from her
house which was lying on the cot. It is the prosecution's case that
the dead body is of the wife of the appellant. Neither the defence
nor any of the witnesses had denied the same.
The second place of the occurrence is the CRPF Camp
where this appellant was found along with the head of the
deceased and the axe. PW1 who is the informant and PW9 who
is the investigating officer had stated that they had seen this
appellant in the CRPF Camp along with the head of the
deceased. This appellant was also arrested from there. Thus both
the place of occurrence have also been proved.
12. The FSL report which is Exhibit-5 suggests that the blood
soaked earth, axe, pahsul (sharp cutting weapon) and the vest of
this appellant contained blood of human origin and all these
blood are of same group which is of group-B. This clearly
suggests that the weapon i.e. the axe and pahsul, was used by this
appellant in committing murder of the deceased and cutting her
head and the blood stains in the vest of this appellant also
suggests that it is this appellant who had committed the offence.
13. Though there is no eye witness to the occurrence of assault
on the deceased by this appellant but the fact and circumstances
which has come out in the evidence clearly suggests that it is this
appellant who had committed the murder. The investigating
officer and the informant are the independent witnesses and they
are the ocular evidence on the point that this appellant was in the
CRPF Camp with the head of his wife.
14. All the aforesaid aspects have been well considered by the
Trial Court while arriving at the conclusion that this appellant is
the guilty of murder. We also independently scrutinized all the
evidences and the documents and come to the same conclusion.
15. We are not in agreement with the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant that this case would fall under section
304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Even if we accept that the
appellant has accepted his guilt and stated that as the deceased
was abusing him and he out of frustration had committed the
murder, but this case on its facts and evidences led will not come
under any of the Exceptions of section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code as the appellant had acted in a most cruel manner in
committing the offence.
16. Thus, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 626 of 2017 stands
dismissed.
17. The judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2017 and order of
sentence dated 23.01.2017 passed by the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 192 of
2015 are affirmed.
18. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court
Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. - I agree.
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated : 25/10/2024
Tanuj/
.A.F.R.
