Dashrath Gope vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1716 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dashrath Gope vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 14 January, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                     Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 366 of 1999(R)
                Against the judgment and order of conviction and
           sentence dated 30.11.199 passed by Sri R.R. Verma,
           learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in
           S.T. No. 286 of 1991.

           1. Dashrath Gope, S/o Shibu Gope.
           2. Ramu Gope, S/o Jagarnath Gope.
           3. Bandhan Gope, S/o Jagarnath Gope.
           4. Shiva Gope, S/o Jagarnath Gope.
              All residents of Vill- Tigra Tikra Toli,
              P.S. Ratu, Dist.- Ranchi.
                                                     ...        Appellants
                                         Versus

           The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
                                                           ...   Respondent
                                 ----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

----

For the Appellants : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

----

CAV On: 17/12/2024 Pronounced On: 14/01/2025 Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-11-1999 passed by Sri R.R. Verma, learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 286/1991 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the conviction under Section 201/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Jagarnath Gope in which it has been stated that on 14-05-1990, the father-in- law of the informant, namely, Jaleshwar Gope and his daughter Jago Devi had gone to Bajpur market and when they were returning home, Dashrath Gope met them and took away Jaleshwar Gope for having liquor. When Jaleshwar Gope did not return home at night, the informant and Jago Devi started searching for him. It has been stated that Dashrath Gope was asked about the whereabouts of the father of Jago Devi, but he evaded in giving any answer. On 17-05-1990, the informant and Jago Devi had come to know that a dead body is floating in the well of Totiya Oraon which was identified to be that of Jaleshwar Gope. The reason for the occurrence was the dispute between Jaleshwar Gope and his Pattidars.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Ratu P.S. Case No. 91/90 was instituted against unknown for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. 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. 286/1991. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Hussain Gope has stated that about three years back while returning from Bajpur market, he had seen besides the road, Ramu, Dashrath and Bandhan taking away Jaleshwar and he thought that perhaps Jaleshwar is being taken to his house. Jaleshwar was drunk at that point of time. After three days, Jago and her elder daughter had come in search of Jaleshwar and he had stated about seeing Jaleshwar with the said persons. Thereafter, the dead body of Jaleshwar was recovered from the well of Totiya and the body had marks of knife injury.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not have any land dispute with Ramu and Bandhan. He had seen Jaleshwar being caught hold by Ramu and Dashrath. There was an enmity between Jaleshwar and Ramu, Dashrath and Bandhan.

P.W.2 Jagarnath Gope is the son-in-law of Jaleshwar Gope, who was murdered. On 14-05-1990, he had returned home after

2|Page driving rickshaw at 6:00-7:00PM and when he asked his wife about the whereabouts of his father-in-law, his wife had replied that he is drinking liquor with Dashrath in the market. His father-in-law did not return even in the next evening. They had started searching for his father-in-law but he could not be traced out. On Thursday at 4:00PM, he came to know that a dead body was floating in the well of Totiya and he had identified the dead body to be of his father-in-law. His fardbeyan was recorded by the Police. His signature in the fardbeyan was proved and marked as Exhibit-1. There was an ongoing land dispute between his father-in-law and Shiva, Aditya, Bandhan Gope and Ramu Gope.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is staying at his in-law's place for 6-7 years. His father-in-law had gone to the market with his wife and Dashrath had made his father-in-law drink liquor while his wife stood nearby. On 14-04-1990 or 15-04-1990, he had not gone for search of his father-in-law but on 16-04-1990 search was conducted in the place of the relatives and on 17-04-1990 several wells were also searched. At 5:00PM on the same day, the body of his father-in-law was found floating in a well. The dead body was taken out from the well on 18-04-1990.

P.W.3 Sahdeo Gope has stated that there was a land dispute between Jaleshwar Gope and Ramu, Aditya and Bandhan.

P.W.4 Jago Devi is the daughter of the deceased Jaleshwar Gope, who has stated that she had gone with her father to the market and when they were returning at the insistence of Dashrath, despite her repeated objections, her father left with Dashrath to have liquor. At that point of time Ramu, Bandhan and Shiva were in the vicinity. She returned back home alone. Her father did not return at night and on the next day, while searching for her father, she asked Dashrath regarding his whereabouts who showed his ignorance and said that after having liquor her father was sent back home. She tried to search out her father on Wednesday also and on Thursday his dead body was located in a well. When the Police arrived, the dead body was taken out which was identified by her to be that of her father. There were

3|Page several marks of injuries over the dead body of her father.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that all the three accused are related to her with whom there has been a long-standing land dispute for which a case was also going on. Her father never used to go to the house of the accused. The accused used to come to her house after consuming liquor, though her father never used to talk to anyone of them. She does not know in whose shop the accused and her father had consumed liquor. When Dashrath had offered her father to consume liquor there was no other person in the vicinity and Bandhan, Shiva and others were at a distance. Her husband and mother had not gone to the house of Dashrath to search for her father. She has deposed that the house of Dashrath is in front of her house. On Wednesday, her brother and her husband had searched some wells but her father could not be found.

P.W.5 Devnandan Mahto has stated that the inquest report was prepared in his presence. He had not given his R.T.I. in the inquest report.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that for the last 6-7 years there has been an enmity between Jagarnath Gope and Shiva Gope, Aditya Gope, Bandhan Gope and Dashrath Gope. He had never seen them drinking together.

P.W.6 Tejua Gope has stated that Jago Devi had come to seek assistance from him for searching out her father and he had also taken efforts to trace out Jaleshwar Gope. Later on, his body was found in a well.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the dead body was fished out from the well by the Police.

P.W.7 Totiya Oraon has stated that about 4 years back a dead body was recovered from his well.

5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the murder.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been convicted for being last seen with the deceased. It has been submitted that there is

4|Page no close proximity with the deceased having been last seen with the appellants and the recovery of the dead body and there is no other instance which would connect the role of the appellants in committing the murder of Jaleshwar Gope.

7. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. has submitted that there was a previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased and this fact coupled with the deceased having been last seen with the appellants would give a strong circumstance certifying the role of the appellants as the assailants.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records.

9. On 14-05-1990, the deceased Jaleshwar Gope, while returning from the market, was offered liquor by the appellant no. 1, who did not object, though as per the evidence of P.W.4, she had raised an objection and consequently, Jaleshwar Gope had left with appellant no. 1. The evidence of some of the witnesses reveal that the other accused persons including appellant no. 2 were hovering nearby. Jaleshwar Gope did not return and his body with injuries upon it was found floating in the well of P.W.7 on 17-05-1990 which was later on fished out upon the arrival of the Police. The evidence of P.W.2, who is the informant and the son-in-law of the deceased, reveals that though his father-in-law did not return on 14-05-1990 but the search which was conducted for tracing him out started on 16-05-1990 and he does not speak about inquiring from appellant no. 1 who has been projected by the prosecution to be the main protagonist and whose house is just opposite the house of the deceased. P.W.4, the daughter of the deceased, seems to have asked the appellant no. 1 about the whereabouts of his father but he had expressed his ignorance. P.W.1, however, seems to have seen the deceased being assisted and carried by the accused persons which he thought of as his being taken to his house. This would mean that the accused persons were not taking him anywhere else but was destined for the house. Enmity is a circumstance which has strongly been addressed by the prosecution which was the result of a land dispute but the evidence of the

5|Page witnesses, more particularly P.W.4, does not concretize such assertion. In fact, if the enmity was to the extent as tried to be projected by the witnesses, there was no occasion for the deceased to have readily accepted the offer of the appellant no. 1 to have liquor despite objection raised by P.W.4. There is no corroborative piece of evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of murder. Although, there were several persons in the market but none of them have been examined by the prosecution. All the material witnesses are related to the deceased. Even the dead body was recovered after a gap of 3 days from the time the deceased was last seen with the appellant. In this context, we may refer to the case of R. Sreenivasa versus State of Karnataka reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 751, wherein it has been held as follows:

"17. In the present case, given that there is no definitive evidence of last seen as also the fact that there is a long time-gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body, and in the absence of other corroborative pieces of evidence, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete that the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant. In Laxman Prasad v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 6 SCC 399, we had, upon considering Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SCC 750, held that '... In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime.' It would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on such evidence, where the chain is clearly incomplete. That apart, the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused and when doubts emanate, the benefit accrues to the accused, and not the prosecution. Reference can be made to Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 749."

10. The learned trial court has overtly relied on the last seen theory being oblivious to the absence of any corroborative material to cushion such evidence and we, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made by us, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence

6|Page dated 30-11-1999 passed by Sri R.R. Verma, learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 286/1991.

11. This appeal is allowed.

12. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.

13. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their 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.

7|Page