Jharkhand High Court
Parmeshwar Gope @ Fatu Gope vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 127 of 1997(R)
Against the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 28.05.1997 passed by Sri N. Lakra,
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in
Sessions Trial No. 51/1995.
Parmeshwar Gope @ Fatu Gope, S/o Pitambar Gope, R/o
Danguposi Basti, P.S.- Naomundi, Dist.- Singhbhum West.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Aniket, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
----
Dated: 14/01/2025
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Aniket Kumar, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special
P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 28-05-1997 passed by Sri N. Lakra
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 51/1995
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act
and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under
Section 302 IPC. No separate sentence has been passed for the
conviction under Section 27 Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Meena Devi
recorded on 13-10-1993, wherein it has been stated that in the
evening her husband Gurudeo Gope was having meals when
Parmeshwar Gope alias Fatu gave a call from outside asking the
husband of the informant to come out and settle all the disputes. At
this, the husband of the informant went out of the house and he was
followed by the informant and her sister-in-law Chukur Mani and they
saw Pitambar Gope, the father of Parmeshwar also present. As soon
as Gurudeo Gope neared Pitambar Gope, his hands were caught and
Pitambar Gope asked his son to shoot at Gurudeo Gope. It has been
alleged that Gurudeo Gope tried to wriggle out, but Parmeshwar Gope
took out a country made pistol and shot at him twice on his chest.
The husband of the informant, while shouting tried to flee away, but
he fell down near the door and after some time he succumbed to his
firearm injuries. After shooting at Gurudeo Gope, Pitambar as well as
Parmeshwar fled away. On hearing the sound of firing and the
resultant commotion that ensued the father-in-law of the informant
Kailash Gope, her mother-in-law Jema Devi, her brother-in-law
Doman Gope rushed to the place of occurrence where they saw both
the accused persons fleeing away. The incident of firing was witnessed
by the informant and her sister-in-law Chukur Mani. The reason for
the occurrence is that Parmeshwar Gope used to eve tease Chukur
Mani and on coming to know about the acts of Parmeshwar Gope,
Gurudeo Gope had reprimanded him. The father of Parmeshwar Gope
had also eve teased Chukur Mani about eight days prior to the
incident.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Noamundi P.S. Case No.
58/93 was instituted. On completion of investigation, charge sheet
was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No.
51/1995. Charge was framed under Section 302/34 IPC and Section
27 Arms Act which was read over and explained to the accused in
Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is
pertinent to mention herein that Pitamber Gope has been acquitted
by the learned trial court.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in
support of its case:
P.W.1 Mata Purty has proved his signature upon the fardbeyan
which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has also proved his signature
on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1.
P.W.2 Gono Purty has been tendered by the prosecution.
P.W.3 Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta was posted as a Civil Assistant
Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 14-10-1993, he had
2|Page
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gurudeo Gope and had found
the following:
(i)
External antemortem injury:
(a) Wound of inherence oval size 1½ cm x 1 cm.
Margin inverted ecchymosed scorch on
surrounding area situated on the lower left part
of the front of chest.
(b) Wound exit- size 2 cm x 1 cm irregular margin
everted situated on the right lower part of back
thorax.
(ii) On dissection:-
(a) Head and neck- intact.
(b) Thorax- internal organ intact, lungs intact,
Heart chamber contained hoace blood.
(c) Abdomen- Spleen grossly damaged, liver
having small hole in its lower part, kidney not
anything detected. Stomach having amount of
semi digested food. Abdomen contains about
half litre of blood.
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and
hemorrhage. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been
marked as Exhibit-2.
P.W.4 Meena Devi is the informant who has stated that it was
around 7:00PM and she was in her house along with her husband
Gurudeo Gope when Parmeshwar Gope alias Fatu had called her
husband from outside for settlement of their disputes. Her husband
readily accepted such proposal and went out of the house and as soon
as he came out, Pitambar Gope caught hold of his hands and
Parmeshwar Gope fired at him. Her husband fell down and died. She
does not know the reason for the occurrence but Chukur Mani knows.
On the same night, Police had come and recorded her fardbeyan. She
has proved her signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as
Exhibit-3.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her husband
worked in the railways. There are 70-80 houses at the place where
she stays and all the houses are adjacent to each other. On the date
of occurrence, her husband had come from work at 6:00PM and was
having his food when Parmeshwar had asked him to come out. When
3|Page
she rushed out on hearing the cry of alarm of her husband, she found
him lying on the ground at a distance of 3-4 hands from her house.
She raised a cry of alarm at which her sister-in-law arrived and other
persons had also come. When she came out of the house, she could
find no one present. About 7-8 persons had arrived including Chukur
Mani. The place where Chukur Mani stays is at a distance of 40 yards
from her house. She had not heard the sound of any person, except,
that of her husband. Fatu used to regularly come to her house and
they were on talking terms with him. She had stated before the Police
that she had identified Fatu from his voice.
P.W.5 Chukur Mani has stated that she was in her house at
7:00PM and she had seen Parmeshwar firing at her brother Gurudeo
Gope which resulted in his death. On the same day, Parmeshwar had
subjected her to sexual harassment and had threatened her of
eliminating the entire family if the matter was reported to the Police.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is unmarried
and stays with her parents. She had seen Pitambar catching hold of
his brother from a distance of 7-8 feet and Parmeshwar firing at him
twice from close range. Her brother, on being hit by bullets, had fallen
at a distance of 10 feet. She had not seen her brother die as she had
left for the G.R.P. Police Station.
P.W.6 Sachidanand Mishra was posted as an Officer-in-Charge
in Noamundi P.S. and on 13-10-1993, he had recorded the fardbeyan
of Meena Devi on the basis of which Noamundi P.S. Case No. 58/93
was instituted. He has proved the fardbeyan as well as the formal FIR
which have been marked as Exhibit-3 and 4 respectively. After taking
over the investigation, he had inspected the place of occurrence which
is in front of the house of the deceased at Dagwaposi. The house of
the accused is at a distance of 18 feet from the place of occurrence.
He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-
5. The seizure list of blood-stained earth has been proved and marked
as Exhibit-6. In course of investigation, he had recorded the statement
of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, had submitted
charge sheet.
4|Page
In cross examination, he has deposed that he had no
information about the incident prior to coming to know about the
fardbeyan.
5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the murder of
Gurudeo Gope.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Aniket Kumar, learned counsel for
the appellant that the evidence of P.W.4 clearly reveals that neither
P.W.4 nor P.W.5 were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It has been
submitted that the post-mortem report belies the assertion of the
prosecution that firing was made by the appellant from close range.
In spite of there being several houses in the vicinity, not a single
independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.
7. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P. has submitted that
P.W.5 has depicted an eyewitness account of the incident and the
reason for the incident has also been established by the prosecution.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and
have also perused the trial court records.
9. The fardbeyan of P.W.4 seem to suggest that P.W.4 had
witnessed the incident of firing leading to the death of her husband
from close range. However, in her evidence during trial, P.W.4 has
given an altogether different scenario from which it transpires that
when P.W.4 had come out from her house, her husband was already
lying dead and there were no other persons present. On alarm, 7-8
persons had arrived which included P.W.5, who stays in a separate
house at a distance of 40 yards from the house of P.W.4. P.W.4 had
also deposed that she had heard the sound of her husband and none
other. The presence of P.W.5 at the place of occurrence and witnessing
the incident seems to have been demolished by virtue of the evidence
of P.W.4. The natural human conduct being confronted with such a
situation seems to be absent so far as P.W.5 is concerned as though
the incident, according to her, occurred at the blink of an eyelid but
instead of raising alarm or going to the aid of her injured brother, she
straight away went to the G.R.P. Police Station, though such claim
5|Page
has not been corroborated by either oral or documentary evidence.
The evidence of P.W.4 also reveals that there were several houses in
close quarters and some persons had also arrived at the place of
occurrence but not a single independent witness has been examined
by the prosecution. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are closely related to the
deceased and it has also come to light about some sexual harassment
committed by the appellant and this could have imbibed P.W.4 and
P.W.5 to implicate the appellant.
10. As we have noticed above, the contradictions emitting from the
evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 does not ascertain the role of the
appellant as the assailant and, therefore, on an overall conspectus of
the case, we hereby set aside the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 28-05-97 passed by Sri N. Lakra learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 51/1995.
11. This appeal is allowed.
12. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
13. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability
of his bail bonds.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 14th Day of January, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
6|Page
