SIRISTA GOPE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE factual matrix are that a police case was registered at behest of Jhopri Gope (P.W. 4) with accusation that while his father Keshwar Gope had been to the field, where ground nuts had been grown, he noticed Sirista Gope and Mahendra Gope uprooting the ground nuts from the field. It was alleged that on resistance made by Keshwar Gope, they along with others grappled with Keshar Gope and assaulted him by fists and slaps and also with hard and blunt substance. After the villagers reached, his father could be rescued. It was alleged that after his father was taken to his house, the appellants came holding arms, pursuant to which, on exhortation made by Faudari Gope, Sirista Gope fired a shot on his father when the latter sustained injury in his left thigh and dropped to the ground. It is alleged that when he came for rescue of his father, he too sustained fire arm injury at the hands of Faudari Gope. It was alleged that the appellants while retiring, also took recourse to firing when Prasadi too sustained fire arm injury at the hands of Mahendra Gope. After the police was set in motion, investigation commenced and in course of investigation the police officer recorded statement of witnesses, got the injured examined by the doctor, inspected place of occurrence and on its conclusion laid chargesheet before the court. The appellants along with others, on being committed to the court of sessions, were eventually put on trial and in the eventual trial, that commenced, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses which include the injured and also some formal witnesses. The defence too examined one Kamal Nath Sinha, an Advocate at District Bar, Nalanda, who stated to have identified the deponent who had sworn an affidavit.

(2.) NOW adverting to the evidences placed on the record, I find that Ram Ratan Singh P.W. 1 was a formal witness and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Dukhi Yadav P.W. 2 turned volte face to the prosecution and his attention was drawn to the early version which he rendered before the police. Keshar Yadav P.W. 3 happened to be the father of the informant and also the injured. He stated that while Sirista Gope and Mahendra Gope were uprooting the ground nuts from the field, he resisted them, pursuant to which they along with others, assaulted him, and after he was going with his son, the appellants along with others intercepted them, when on exhortation made by Faudari Gope, Sirista Gope fired shot at him causing injury in his left thigh and when Jhopri Gope came for his rescue, he too sustained injury at the hands of Faudari Gope on his left hand and also left thigh. Prasadi Gope too sustained injury with fire arm, when Mahendra Gope took recourse to firing. All the injured went to Hospital where they were treated. Attention of this witness was drawn towards early version rendered before police by the defence, on material particulars of the case, about the appellants being assailants of the injured. Similar was the case with Prasadi P.W. 5. Though he too made coherent statement as that of P.W. 3 about Keshar Gope sustaining fire arm injury at the hands of Sirista Gope, and Jhopri Gope sustaining fire arm injury at the hands of Faudari Gope and Mahendra Gope causing fire arm injury to Prasadi Gope. Attention of this witness too was drawn by the defence to his early version rendered before the police, about the appellants being the assailants of the injured. Though narrations made by Jhopri Gope P.W. 4 was reiteration of his early version made before the police, his attention too was drawn by the defence.

(3.) DICHHA Narain Singh P.W. 7 was a formal witness and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, and the trial court, while finding Boudhu Gope, Ram Prasad Gope, Bhosu Gope and Krishna Gope not guilty of the charges, rendered verdict of guilt against the appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and also 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each on both counts with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.