TRIPURARI GOPE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed on behalf of thirteen Appellants against the judgment dated 5.9.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 241 of 1996/13 of 2007 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Nalanda at Biharsharif whereby the Appellants were found guilty for committing offences under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated 9.9.2009, Appellant Tripurari Gope has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months for offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and further he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and rest of the Appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) First information report was registered on the basis of oral statement of Raj Kishore Prasad (P.W. 6) in which he has stated that in the morning of 15.10.1994 he had gone to irrigate his field situated in Jagir Badh, east of his Village-Lakhichak. Part of the field was vacant and in other part Jhalra crops were grown and it was to be irrigated from a pond. The informant noticed Dhirendra Gope son of Tripurari Gope coming, to wards him but he returned after seeing the irrigated field. After about half an hour, he noticed all the accused persons who were coming towards him. Accused Tripurari Gope and Ashok Gope were armed with countrymade rifle and a double barreled gun respectively while accused Shailendra Gope, Jai Shankar Gope, Ram Bali Gope and Ajay Gope were armed with saif, sword, falsa and garasa respectively and rest accused persons were armed with traditional weapons like lathis. Thereafter accused Tripurari Gope fired from his countrymade rifle causing injury to Bijendra Gope who act down. Then at the behest of accused Tripurari Gope, others have also assaulted. Accused Ashok Gope fired from his double barreled gun on the informant who ducked sharply and saved himself. Accused Shilendra Gope attacked on the informant with saif which caused cut injury on his head. Accused Jai Shankar Gope used his sword at Raj Kumar Gope (P.W. 5) causing injury on his head. Other accused persons have also assaulted the informant and his uncle Chandeshwar Gope (P.W. 4). The motive of the assault was 49 decimals of land which was purchased by the informant from Md. Zafir Alam through a registered deed and the same land was purchased by accused persons from Md. Rafique, brother of Md. Zafir Alam. The accused persons were adamant to take possession, so the offence taken. First information report was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act but after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act were framed against accused Tripurari Gope and Ashok Gope whereas charges under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against accused Shailendra Gope, Jai Shankar Gope, Ram Bali Gope and Ajay Gope. Against rest of the accused charges under Sections 307 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code were framed. The charges were explained to the accused persons who pleaded innocence. So trial proceeded.

(3.) The defence of the accused persons was of false implication and also that the informant and his men were aggressors and they were trying to take possession of the land which were of the Appellants.