JAGDISH GOPE Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the accused) namely Jagdish Gope who was of the age of 44 years at the time of recording of his conviction vide impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2012 handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge -3rd, Dhanbad under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred the instant appeal through Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), as he had no means to defend himself primarily for the reason that no one from his family has come forward, may be that he has killed his real uncle namely Sukar Gope (for short referred to as deceased). The arm allegedly used by him is stated to be axe. In common parlance it is known as 'Tangi', a sharp edged weapon of heavy weight. There are as many as three injuries on the person of the deceased which proved to be fatal. It is a case resting upon eye version account of PW 1 and 2 who also happened to be the wife and daughter of the deceased. The cause of occurrence, as projected by the prosecution, is some land dispute going on between the deceased and the accused. This, in brief, is the case of the prosecution and we do not want to enter into the more details for the reason that there appears to be a gross irregularity committed by the learned trial court during the trial which, according to Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate for the appellant, turns out to be very grave one and in turn, it will vitiate the entire trial.

(2.) LEARNED counsel contended that the accused, in fact, was suffering from mental disorder (schizophrenia) which came to the notice of the Court during the trial, as is evident from the trial court record. He stated that what is available from the trial court record is that on 10.3.2003 the proceeding of the trial court was stayed as there was a report of the Civil Surgeon regarding mental illness of the accused, as such he was to be shifted to Ranchi Institute of Neuro -Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (RINPAS). Learned counsel submitted that thereafter also trial remained stayed for a reasonable good time as the report of the Doctor finding the accused to be fit to face trial was not received and ultimately it was received on 30th November, 2006 indicating therein that he was fit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that no doubt there appears to be some lapse on the part of the defence counsel also who should not have cross -examined the witnesses in absence of the report of the doctor of RINPAS, but that lapse, in any case, would not cure the fundamental defect crept in the trial and in this eventuality, the entire trial gets vitiated.