IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Inderjeet Patro @ Indrajeet Pater son of Rashu Patro and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.64 of 1994 (R) with Cr. Appeal (DB) No.151 of 1995 (R)
Decided On : 04-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's procedural overview and judgment pronouncement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the conviction and factual background of the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. abatement of appeal due to death of appellant. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments against the conviction and discrepancies in witness testimonies. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's determination regarding witness credibility and trial evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. reference to judicial precedents regarding discrepancies in witness testimonies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. analysis of contradictions and justification for the credibility of eyewitness accounts. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. adjustment of sentencing related to statutory requirements. (Para 30) |
| 9. final orders and directions regarding appeals and sentencing. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :-
The matter has been heard at length on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Court has perused the materials available on record,
3. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, has dictated the judgment in the open Court in presence of learned counsel for the parties.
4. Both the appeals since arising out of common Judgment of conviction dated 11.02.1994 and Order of sentence dated 14.02.1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.06/1992 and as such, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.
5. The instant appeals are against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.02.1994 and Order of sentence dated 14.02.1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.06/1992, whereby and whereunder, the appellants (in both the appeals) have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and they have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant, namely, Narayan Patar, one of the accused/appellant in Cr. Appeal No.64 of 1994 (R) has died on 07.09.1998 and this Court, vide order dated 13.03.2019, has abated the appeal against him.
7. The prosecution story in brief as per the first information report is that on 9th August, 1991 at 7:30 a.m. at Village Jagannathpur, Tola Purnadih, Police Station-Ghatshila, District-East Singhbhum, the Sub-inspector, namely, Maheshwari Prasad recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Janani Patar in the house of accused Narayan Patar. The informant alleged in her fardbeyan that her husband, namely, Prahalad impugned judgment and the lower court records. Patar used to go to Ghatshila for working as Mason and return therefrom in the night every day. On 8th August, 1991, the husband of the informant went to Ghatshila and when he did not return in the night, the informant stood at the door of her house looking northward of the road waiting for return of her husband.
It was at about 10 p.m., she noticed that her husband returning from north to village road. But she saw that as soon as on the way her husband reached in front of the house of the accused Narayan Patar, the said accused along with his wife Sonki Patrian [appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.151 of 1995 (R)] and other accused persons, namely, Indrajeet Patar and Pagala Patar @ Sakhi Pater [appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.64 of 1994 (R)] and two unknown came out of the said house and caught hold of her husband, Prahalad Patar. They took Prahalad Patar into the court-yard of the house where they started assaulting him by means of sharp edged portion of axes. The informant saw her husband being assaulted in the light of the laltern and torch from beside the wall of the house where she stood and rushed to defend her husband. But accused Narayan Patar chased her away and on this, she fled into her house and st
Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC(Cri) 977
Faquira Vs. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 662
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gurajar (1983) 3 SCC 217
Kashiram Vs. State of M.P. (1998) 7 SCC 450
Parbata Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005) 13 SCC 398
Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana
Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana
Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh
Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry)
Ramji Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Sheo Shankar Singh, Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 654
Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors.
Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar (1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999 SCC(Cri) 104
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC(Cri) 1085
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The judgment establishes that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, which do not materially affect the case, cannot be the basis for doubting the prosecution's case.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the shared common intention of the accused in committing the murder.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.