MIHIR GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(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 fardbeyan of one Kasi Ram Mahto on 20th August 2005, being the date of occurrence of the offence. In the depositions as reproduced in the paperbook, 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 fardbeyan, 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 fardbeyan and the prosecution witnesses have broadly corroborated the content of the fardbeyan. 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 fardbeyan 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 Vijay- all 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 dali-khapra (earthen roof-tiles) 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 construction of the hut formed the genesis of the dispute and could be related to motive of the crime. Manohar, the main assailant along with his sons- Mihir, Prabhat and Kailash were also at the place of occurrence, as it transpires from the evidence of Kasi Ram and other prosecution witnesses. There was exchange of words mainly between Manohar and Kasi Ram, after which Manohar had attacked Anil onhis head with an iron rod, as a result of which Anil collapsed on the ground and became unconscious. On the informant's attempt to rescue Anil, he was also assaulted by Manohar on his hands, head, and back. As per prosecution evidence, the three sons of Manohar-Mihir (first appellant), Prabhat (second appellant) and Kailash were supplied with a tangi (a variant of axe), sawal (crowbar) and a gupti (a longish sword) by Usha Devi. Before the assault started, Kasi Ram wanted Manohar to go to the police station with him, presumably to sort out the dispute, but Manohar refused to go there. Manohar had asserted that it was his land. It was at that stage Manohar assaulted Anil on his head with the iron rod. As regards the sequence in which the assault took place, Kasi Ram's evidence is that when "Indu went to tie Anil with towel then Manohar assaulted him on head with rod and he became injured". The name "Indu", as has been recorded in the deposition of Kasi Ram (as it appears in the paperbook) obviously refers to Jatu. In the sequence of events narrated by the other eye-witnesses, being PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-11, this particular victim has been referred to as Jatu.