FULCHAND GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(SC)-2003-12-110
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on December 16,2003

Fulchand Gope Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

INDER SINGH AND ORS. VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(UTN)-2013-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
MANUA @ PURAN VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2012-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDJI BHAVAJI THAKOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-6-99] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT S/O PRAVINSINGH GIRASE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
NANAG RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
SAFIQ AND ORS VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-696] [REFERRED]
VIPIN KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-9-90] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These three appeals are by four accused persons who faced trial for allegedly having committed homicidal death of one Jai Kumar Pandey (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). The occurrence took place over a very small and trivial matter on 13-10-1981. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") so far as all the four accused persons are concerned, and Section 323 IPC relating to appellant-accused, Bhola Gope and Gauri Gope. The trial court found the accused persons guilty of the aforesaid offences, sentenced each one to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Though Bhola Gope and Gauri Gope were convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC, no separate sentence was imposed. The appeal before the Patna High Court did not bring any relief and a Division Bench by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence.
(2.)In support of the appeal, Mr A. Sharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court has failed to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the evidence. Three of the accused persons were minors at die time of occurrence. Finally, it was submitted that the factual scenario, as noticed by the trial court and the High Court does not make out a case under Section 302 IPC, and in any event, so far as accused Fulchand Gope, Sahdeo Gope and Bhola Gope are concerned, even Section 304 IPC would not be applicable to their cases. The learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand supported the judgments of the trial court and the High Court.
(3.)The factual background, as described by the trial court and noticed by the High Court is to the following effect: on 13-10-1981, around 4.00 p.m., accused Fulchand Gope was grazing the paddy crops of the informant, Arjun Pandey, PW 5 and his goats and sheep were destroying the crops. This was objected to by PW 7, Kalawati Devi, sister of PW 5. She was slapped by accused Fulchand Gope. Kalawati Devi went home and informed about the occurrence and PW 5 went and asked him as to why his sister was slapped. At this, accused Bhola Gope brought a lathi and chased the informant who ran away. Subsequently, all the accused persons reached there armed with various weapons. Accused Gauri Gope had a tangi in his hand and the others had lathis. Bhola Gope gave a lathi-blow to the informant and Gauri Gope gave a tangi-blow on the head of the deceased. The others pelted stones, causing injury to PW 1, Bhuneshwar Pandey. Thereafter, information was lodged at the police station and investigation was undertaken.


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