Dismissed

Mohan Gope v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Feb 2015Cr.A(DB)/1063/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder, the High Court of Jharkhand examined the prosecution evidence including eye witness testimony and medical reports. The Court found the evidence established guilt beyond doubt and rejected the innocence plea based on the appellant's presence in his house, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the conviction and sentence are upheld.

Mohan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1063 of 2004

¶2

-----------

¶3

Against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2004 and order of sentence 31.01.2004 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.IV, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2002.

¶4

Mohan Gope

¶5

Son of Dilbodhan Gope, Resident of Village- Kanbhitha, P.S.Mandar, District- Ranchi …. …. …. Appellant

¶6

--Versus--

¶7

The State of Jharkhand …. …. …. Respondent

¶8

For the Appellant: Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, A.P.P.

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 31.01.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.156 of 2002 by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Tract Court No.IV, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appellant having been found guilty for committing murder of Chhatu Gope was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.09.2001, when Chhatu Gope, the husband of the informant Bahura Devi (P.W.4), came home after plying rickshaw and was taking rest, the appellant came and asked him to provide liquor and also Haria (a kind of indigenous liquor). The informant and also her husband refused to oblige him by saying that they do not have

¶14

2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1063 of 2004

¶15

any liquor with them. Thereupon, the appellant left the place. At 11.00 p.m., the appellant having dagger with him again came along with others. All of them dragged Chhatu Gope (deceased) to the door of the room where the appellant inflicted one injury with dagger at the lateral side of the abdomen and one injury in front side of the abdomen, as a result of which intestine came out as a result of which there was profuse bleeding. Accused persons fled from there. This was seen by the daughter of the informant also. When the informant P.W.4 raised alarm, number of persons including P.W.2- Bajrang Gope, P.W.3- Laldev Oraon, P.W.5- Manga Oraon came over there to whom the informant told about the occurrence.

¶16

In the next morning, Hare Ram Paswan, Officer-inCharge of Mandar Police Station, when came to know that one person in the village has been murdered, came to village where he recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.2), upon which a formal F.I.R. (Ext.3) was drawn. The I.O.- P.W.6 took up the investigation. During investigation, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4). During investigation, the I.O. also seized earth smeared with blood from the place of occurrence and prepared a seizure list (Ext.1/A). After holding inquest, the dead body was sent for post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. Saroj Kumar (P.W.8). During postmortem examination, he did find following injuries:-

¶17

(i) 3½ X 2 c.m. X cavity deep over left part of abdomen lateral side upper part, the weapon passed

¶18

3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1063 of 2004

¶19

through abdominal wall and entered into left kidney. There was presence of blood and blood clot in the abdominal cavity.

¶20

(ii) 4 ½ X 2 cm X cavity deep on front of left side of abdomen near the umbilicus, the weapon passed through abdominal wall perforated the small intestine and mysentery. A coil of intestine was protruding through the wound. There was presence of blood and blood clots in the abdominal cavity.

¶21

The doctor issued the post mortem examination report (Ext.5) with an opinion that death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of aforesaid injuries caused by sharp cutting and pointed weapon.

¶22

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the accused was put on trial, who pleaded not guilty of the charge framed against him. During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, of them P.W.4, widow of the deceased, and P.W.1, daughter of the deceased Poonam Kumari, are the eye witnesses whereas P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 are the villagers, who reached over the place of occurrence after hearing the alarm raised by the informant where the deceased told them and also to P.W.7, the father of the deceased, that it was the appellant, who had inflicted the injuries. The court having found the testimonies trustworthy getting corroboration from the medical evidence did find the charges being proved beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby

¶23

4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1063 of 2004

¶24

recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid which is under challenge.

¶25

Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned counsel who has been appointed as amicus curiae from the panel lawyer of JHALSA, submits that appellant is innocent, who has been implicated in this case as relationship was not cordial in between the appellant and the family of the deceased. In this regard, it was submitted that it was the deceased, who was instrumental in getting the appellant married with a woman with whom the appellant could not develop a good relation. Further, it was submitted that innocence of the appellant gets reflected from the fact that even after occurrence, he was there in his house all along and has been arrested from the house. Had the appellant committed the offence, he would not have stayed in the house rather would have absconded, but the court below did not pay any attention to this important aspect of the matter and thereby the trial court can be said to have committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence.

¶26

As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that it is a full proof case where not an iota of doubt is there over the complicity of the appellant in committing murder of the deceased. The evidences, which have been led by the prosecution, go to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant killed the deceased and therefore, judgment of conviction and order of sentence never warrants to be interfered with by this court.

¶27

5 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1063 of 2004

¶28

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the State. The informant- P.W.4 has testified categorically that when her husband after plying rickshaw came home and was taking rest, the appellant came and asked from them to provide liquor and also Haria which the informant denied to provide on the pretext that they do not keep liquor with them, upon which the appellant went away from there. After some time at about 11.00 p.m., he came along with others and was having dagger with him. They brought the deceased near the door of the house by dragging and there the appellant inflicted two injuries on his abdomen one on the front and other on the lateral part of the abdomen as a result of which intestine came out. The occurrence was also seen by P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased, who was present in the house. She in her testimony has reiterated the same story. As per them when the deceased was inflicted with the injuries, the informant raised alarm, upon it P.Ws.2, 3 & 5 reached over there and saw intestine coming out of the body. According to them, they were told by the deceased that it was the appellant who had inflicted injuries to him. The testimonies of the eye witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.4 as well as aforesaid witnesses get support from the objective finding of the I.O., who did find blood over the place of occurrence which had been spilled over the earth, which had been seized by him. That apart, testimonies of the witnesses further find corroboration from the medical evidence as the doctor, who held autopsy on the dead

¶29

6 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1063 of 2004

¶30

body, had found two injuries; one on the lateral part and other on the front part of the abdomen. According to the doctor, a coil of intestine was found protruding out of the body. In view of these evidences, any plea taken of innocence of the appellant as because he in spite of occurrence did remain present in the house is not acceptable in absence of any other material suggesting even remotely that the appellant has falsely been implicated.

¶31

Thus, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which needs not to be interfered with by this court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶32

(R.R. Prasad, J.)

¶33

(R.N. Verma, J.)

¶34

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 10^th February, 2015 Anit/Ritesh/N.A.F.R.

Mohan Gope v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Gope v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Yadav And Anr. Vs State

Manoj Yadav Manohar Yadav Vs State

Debang Dehari Dewan Vs State of Jharkhand

Suva Mahto Subba Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Gabrail Samad And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sheo Charan Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Pappu Yadav And Anr. Vs State

Manoj Yadav  Manohar Yadav Vs State

Debang Dehari  Dewan Vs State of Jharkhand

Suva Mahto  Subba Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Gabrail Samad And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sheo Charan Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Manoj Yadav Manohar Yadav Vs State

Debang Dehari Dewan Vs State of Jharkhand

Suva Mahto Subba Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand