Surendra Gope vs The State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C. Ist, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 532 of 2008, arising out of Deep Nagar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and vide aforesaid order, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.05.2008 in the evening, the informant was going towards the agricultural field to attend call of nature and reached near the house of Vishwanath Gope, he was surrounded by all the accused persons, namely, Vishwanath Gope, Surendra Gope (appellant), Munni Gope and Dayanand Gope and on the instigation of co-accused Vishwanath Gope, this appellant assaulted on the head of informant with Garasa, causing an incised injury, whereas, other persons assaulted him (informant) with lathi and danda and also snatched Rs.12,000/- from pocket of informant.

On the basis of fardbeyan, Deep Nagar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2008 was instituted and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 3. 341, 323, 324, 379 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned C.J.M. took cognizance under aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and committed the case to the court of sessions and thereafter, charges were framed under Sections 341, 379, 307/149 of the I.P.C. and explained to the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In this case, the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses in order to prove its case, who are:

P.W.1 – Ramprit Prasad, P.W.2 – Krishna Yadav, P.W.3 – Ramlagan Prasad, P.W.4 – Rajkumar Gope, P.W.5 – Bindeshwari Prasad (informant/injured), P.W.6 – Naresh Prasad & P.W.7 – Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Sinha.

During the pendency of the trial, co-accused Vishwanath Gope and Budhan Gope died and proceedings against them stood abated/terminated in accordance with law.

On behalf of defence, two defence witnesses were examined, as Vijendra Prasad (D.W.1) and Indradev Prasad Singh (D.W.2), however, evidence of defence was closed on 21.07.2017.

The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidences, which are marked as:-

During investigation, P.W.1 (Ramprit Prasad), who is son of informant, has supported the prosecution case and deposed that he took his father to hospital for his treatment. Similarly, P.W.2 (Krishna Yadav), brother of informant, supported the prosecution case and deposed that accused persons had surrounded informant and appellant assaulted on informant’s head with Garasa. P.W.3 (Ramlagan Prasad), another son of informant, is hearsay witness, since he is blind. P.W.4 (Rajkumar Gope) has supported the prosecution case and deposed that blood was oozing out from informant’s head and he saw Garasa on the hand of appellant, whereas others were having lathi on their hand and all were fleeing from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 (Bindeshwari Prasad, who is informant & injured witness, has fully supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief and deposed that this appellant was his Gotiya and due to land dispute between them, he (appellant) assaulted him with Garasa, causing injury on his head. P.W.6 (Naresh Prasad) is a formal witness, who proved the signature of informant on the Fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit – 2. P.W.7 ( Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Sinha) also supported the prosecution case and stated that he examined the injuries of informant and found the injury to be simple, caused by sharp edge weapon. He also proved injury report and X-ray report, as Ext. 3 and 3/1 respectively. After hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the learned trial Court exonerated Munni Gope & Dayanand Gope from the charge and convicted & sentenced this appellant, as indicated above, which is under-challenge in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment of conviction & sentence and submits that in this case, neither the Investigating Officer nor any independent witness has been examined on behalf of prosecution. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence of the appellant as he was not able to contradict the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who are mainly family members of informant/injured, and hence, the impugned judgment of sentence and conviction are fit to be quashed and set aside

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the appeal and submits that there is no need of any interference in this appeal, since the prosecution witnesses, including doctor, have supported the prosecution case and there is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Though, in this case, investigating officer was not examined on behalf of prosecution, but this Court finds that the evidences are completely trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence that it was this appellant (Surendra Gope), who caused injury on the head of informant with Garasa and he was also found present at the place of occurrence with Garasa. Even the doctor (P.W.7), who examined the injury of informant and proved injury reports, has found that the injured (informant) sustained injury by sharp edge weapon on his head. Though, injury has been found to be simple in nature.

From perusal of ordersheet dated 11.05.2018 of the learned trial Court, it appears that appellant was found guilt of offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and thereafter, taken into custody, however, he was enlarged on provisional bail till 23.06.2018, and the provisional bail was confirmed by this Court, vide order dated 11.06.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also the fact that the incident took place in the year 2008 and at the time of filing of this appeal, the appellant was aged about 50 years, so now, he is approaching 60 years of age and there is no complaint against him after institution of the present F.I.R. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C. Ist, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 532 of 2008, arising out of Deep Nagar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2008 is upheld and the sentence, awarded by the Trial Court, is reduced to the period, already undergone by this appellant.

Since, sentence is modified, the fine of Rs. 1,000/-(one thousand), which was imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court, is also waived.

In that view of the matter, the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond in connection with present case.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.