Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Mihir Gope – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 22-23 of 2021, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos. 8973-8974 of 2019
Decided On : 08-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34, 307, 341 and 325 – Murder, attempt to murder, wrongful restraint and hurt – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Depositions of eyewitnesses for prosecution broadly gives description of events that corresponds with fardbeyan, but there are discrepancies on role of each of accused persons in effecting specific strikes on victims individually – All eyewitnesses were related to victims but for that very reason Court cannot disbelieve their version – Story of defence that injuries of victims were unintentionally inflicted by falling tiles when members of victims’ family were dismantling structure does not inspire confidence – Prosecution witnesses have been consistent and uniform in their version – Evidence of medical practitioners do not match with number of strikes made by accused – Prosecution has failed to establish on the basis of evidence that two appellants shared common intention with co-accused – Judgment of conviction and order on sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC set aside – judgment of High Court on their conviction and sentence under Section 325 of Code also set aside – Conviction and sentence of two appellants under Section 307 of Code also set aside – None of eyewitnesses has stated in course of their examination that appellants had wrongfully confined them – Appellants acquitted of charges under all provisions – However, appellants held guilty of committing offence under Section 324 of Code and sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment awarded – Appeals Partly allowed. (Paras 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court sentenced the two appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing offence under Section 302 of the Code, simple imprisonment for a month in relation to offence under Section 341 of the Code, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for offence under Section 325 of the Code, and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence under Section 307 of the Code. High Court, in appeals by four convicted accused persons, sustained judgment of conviction and orders of sentences of these two appellants. The judgment of conviction of one of accused persons was set aside by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
It would be apparent from the evidence of the medical practitioners that there was only one injury on Anil’s head whereas on Jatu’s head, there is a probability that he suffered two injuries. But the injuries on Jatu’s head cannot be said to have been caused by either axe or tangi, which are sharp edged weapons. Even if we proceed on the basis that both axe and tangi have blunt sides and such blunt sides were used to strike, that very fact cannot establish involvement of both Mihir and Prabhat in striking Anil and Jatu. Thus, we do not think Trial Court and the High Court had rightly concluded on involvement of Mihir and Prabhat in assault of Anil and Jatu so as to implicate them for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the code.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Anil Mahto and Jatu Mahto had died from injuries received in consequence of assaults on them on 20th August, 2005 over a land related dispute. Certain other members of the appellant’s family were also injured on account of assault as a result of the same dispute. The appellants are two sons of one Manohar Gope, with whom the dispute had arisen. The cause of the dispute with the members of the deceased victims’ family is specifically related to the construction of a hut. The prosecution’s case is that certain members of the Gope family were the assailants. The appellants before us are Mihir Gope (in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8973 of 2019) and Prabhat Gope (in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8974 of 2019). They have been held guilty by the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bokaro) for committing offences under Sections 341, 307, 325 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the Code). The Trial Court sentenced the two appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing offence under Section 302 of the Code, simple imprisonment for a month in relation to offence under Section 341 of the Code, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for offence under Section 325 of the Code, and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence under Section 307 of the Code. The sentences had been directed to run concurrently by the Trial Court. Altogether five persons including the two appellants were tried for the offences initiated by a fard-beyan of one Kasi Ram Mahto on 20th August 2005, being the date of occurrence of the offence. In the depositions as reproduced in the paper-book, he has been referred to in some places as Kari Ram. Similarly, the deceased victim Jatu Mahto has been referred to as Jadu, Jethu, Jattu and Indu by different witnesses. We shall, however, refer to them as Kasi Ram and Jatu in this judgment, ignoring these discrepancies. None of the parties has raised any question or dispute on this count. On the basis of the said fard-beyan, First Information Report was registered on the same date in Pindrajora police station of Bokaro district in the State of Jharkhand. In this judgment, we shall also be referring to the accused persons as also victims and members of their family by their first names only. Kasi Ram himself was injured in the assault. He was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 12 in the trial. Major part of the assault on the members of the Mahto family, particularly on Anil, Jatu and Kasi Ram was attributed to Manohar in the fard-beyan and the prosecution witnesses have broadly corroborated the content of the fard-beyan. The High Court, in appeals by the four convicted accused persons, sustained the judgment of conviction and orders of sentences of these two appellants. The judgment of conviction of one of the accused persons, Usha Devi (wife of Mihir), was set aside by the High Court. The decision of the High Court was delivered on 10th October, 2018.
3. The fard-beyan was recorded at Bokaro General Hospital (BGH). It was disclosed therein that Kasi Ram, the informant, with his wife Puna Devi had reached the place of occurrence at Obra Mouza from their place of residence at Bokaro on receiving a phone call from his brother Premchand (PW-11). The phone call conveyed that Manohar had constructed a hut on the land of the informant. Jatu, Anil, Premchand, Puranchand, Dakshineshwar, Mukteshwar and Vijayall members of the Mahto family had also reached the place of occurrence when Kasi Ram and Puna Devi reached the spot. On reaching the place of occurrence at about 8 a.m. on that date, they found a hut with dalikhapra (earthen rooftiles) on the land in question. Substantial evidence was led before the Trial Court on title or ownership of the land on which the hut was constructed. But that factor is not of much relevance so far as the present appeals are concerned, except that the con
Evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be disbelieved only because they are related to victims.
The court clarified that mere participation in an assault does not equate to intent to kill, necessitating clear evidence of a common object for murder to uphold convictions under Section 302.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of evidence to determine the nature of injuries and the presence of intention or knowledge to cause death, leading to the alteration....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the importance of con....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
