GOPAL RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2011-7-24
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on July 22,2011

GOPAL RAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)SOLE appellant Gopal Ram has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Sadashiv Paswan, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of the informant Bimla Devi and under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act for causing explosion to endanger life and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The order of conviction and sentence was passed by Additional Sessions Judge XII, Munger in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1985.
(2.)THE fardbeyan (Ext.3) of Bimla Devi led to registration of Lakhisarai P.S.Case No. 98 of 1984 for offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act. THE fardbeyan was recorded by S.I. Sri V.N.Jha (P.W.6) at Mananpur Bazar at 9.45 P.M. on 19.03.1984 wherein informant Bimla Devi in presence of her Dewar Ram Snehi Paswan (not examined) and cousin father-in-law Bundi Paswan (not examined) has narrated that at about 8.30 P.M. her husband was sitting on a cot inside the Angan. THE informant brought water for him and offered him to drink. At that very time, Goapl Ram (appellant) having bombs in his hands crossed inside through eastern side of Angan and threw a bomb upon the head of her husband, as a result thereof the entire portion of the skull over neck blew off and he died at the spot. When the informant wanted to catch the accused he again threw another bomb on her but it missed and exploded on the ground but its splinters caused injuries on her face, chest, hands and thigh. On hearing of her cry, Md.Sultan (not examined), Nand Kishore Yadav and many other persons of the locality came and witnessed the occurrence. THE motive behind the occurrence was the land dispute between the cousin father-in-law Mishri Ram of the deceased and the appellants father Jageshwar Ram. After fardbeyan, inquest report (Ext.5) was prepared and in course of investigation, post mortem report Ext.7) was received, sanction order (Ext.2) for prosecution under the provision of Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act was received from the District Magistrate, Munger, seizure lists ( Exts.6 and 6/1) were prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. THE case was found to be true and thereafter chargesheet was submitted. Charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having intentionally caused the death of Sadashiv Paswan by means of bomb, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed attempt intentionally to cause death of the informant Bimla Devi by the same means and under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act for possessing and using explosive device were framed and the same were explained to the accused who pleaded innocence and preferred to face trial.
The defence of the accused was of false implication.

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. They are : Mishri Paswan (P.W.1), Dhajo Paswan (P.W.2), Nand Kishore Pd.Yadav (P.W.3), Bimla Devi, the informant (P.W.4), Awadh Kishore Prasad. Assistant of Munger Collectorate (P.W.5), Veda Nand Jha, the Investigating Officer (P.W.6) and Dr.S.Sohail (P.W.7) who conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased.

The defence has not examined any witness.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidences on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and hence convicted and sentenced him, as stated above.

(3.)THIS court is required to reappraise the evidences on record and to see as to whether the prosecution was able to prove the charges beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts against the appellant.
First of all, it is appropriate to discuss the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. On 20.03.1984 Dr.S.Sohail (P.W.7) was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Munger and on that date he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Sadashiv Paswan and found following ante mortem injuries on his person:

(i) whole of skull except chin, lower lip and lower jaw was found blown at the level of first cervical vertebrae on the back. The margin of the skin was completely lacerated, irregular and charred. The entire brain matter was found drained out. The chin and lower lip were found charred. Blood clots on the surface of the wound were present. (ii) Lacerated wound x on the right elbow with charring of skin around it. (iii) Multiple burn injury on the right shoulder, upper right wrist and right hand with blackening of skin around the injuries.
The injuries, according to opinion of the doctor, were ante mortem caused by explosive device. The time elapsed since death was 24 hours. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of Injury no.(i). In cross-examination the doctor has stated that at the time of post mortem examination he found undigested rice in the stomach and no pakaura as food material was found. Further evidence of the doctor will be discussed after evidence of the ocular witnesses are discussed.
P.W.1 Mishri Paswan is a hearsay witness. He heard from Janak Paswan (not examined) regarding killing of Sadashiv Ram Mukhiya. Thereafter he rushed to his house and saw Sadashiv Ram lying dead on a cot and his head was blown off. Pieces of flesh were scattered and the residue of bomb were found scattered hither and thither. In presence of this witness, teeth of the deceased and blood stained earth etc. were seized by the Investigating Officer and seizure lists were prepared which were marked as Exts. 6 and 6/1. Therefore, this witness is not an eye witness of the occurrence rather he is a witness of seizure of certain articles.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.