KARU GOPE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE appellant Parmeshwar Gope suffered conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rest appellants Manoj Gope, Karu Gope, Bholi Gope and Sokinder Gope suffered conviction under Section 302/149, IPC and all these appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Parmeshwar Gope suffered conviction also under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years.

(2.) AT this juncture it would be convenient to briefly advert to the factual backdrops which are as follows. At about 6 p.m. on 4.2.1996 while Surendra Mahto (PW 12) was at the door of his house and deceased Jitendra Kumar aged about 12 years was there, appellants, namely parmeshwar Gope, Manoj Gope, Karu Gope, Bholi Gope and Sokinder Gope came holding arms, pursuant to which on exhortation made by Karu Gope, Parmeshwar Gope, pumped bullet in left side of chest of Jitendra Kumar on arms being supplied by Manoj Gope and said Jitendra Gope instantaneously died with bleeding wounds on his person. Though the appellants were given good chase, they wielded their arms and while pelting brick bats, made good their escape in the north. Deceased Jitendra Kumar did not survive fatal injury and those who were suggested to have witnessed the incident, were Moti Mahto, Mannu Mahto, and Ram Awatar Prasad, who have been examined at trial by the State. The prosecution was launched on strength of fardbeyan of Surendra Mahto (PW 12), pursuant to which investigation followed, in course of which, Investigating Officer visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared inquest report over the dead body the deceased, took steps for apprehension of the appellants, got autopsy held over the dead body of the deceased and on conclusion of investigation laid charge -sheet before the Court.

(3.) DEFENCE of the appellants both before this Court and the Court below had been that of innocence and they ascribed false implication for no good reasons. Explicit defence of the appellants was that if narrations made by the prosecution witnesses was to be given any due consideration about there being dispute with Moti Mahto, no good reasons were assigned by the State as to why assailants had picked up Jitendra Kumar for execution of his killing, and on these premises it was urged that motive assigned by the State was quite fragile. The trial Court, however, oh evaluating probative value of the testimony of witnesses and regard being had to the positive findings recorded by the doctor, while negativing plea of innocence of the appellants recorded findings of guilt and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above.