Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 31st December 2019
Jagan Gope & Ors. V/s. State of West Bengal CRA 389/2012
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The instant appeal before the High Court was filed against the impugned order of the Sessions Court dated 10.05.2012 & 11.05.2012 which has convicted the appellants for rigorous imprisonment for Life and ₹5,000 each as fine.
- Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is that on 12.7.98 at 10.00 P.M., there was a dispute over catching of fish between Abodh Saran Gope, the deceased on the one hand and Ashadhan Gope, Bhadru Gope and Sasthi Gope on the other hand. The miscreants were chased away. Tulshi Gope, father of Bhadru and Sasthi threatened Abodh that he has become a rich person and should be taught a lesson.
- On 13.7.98, Abodh Gope, who was the Headmaster of Sirkadih Primary School, had gone to the school to discharge his duties. Around 1.00 P.M., the appellants being variously armed assaulted Abodh in the school resulting in his death.
- The incident was witnessed by P.W.6, Mathur Gope who reported the matter to Nilmohan Gope, P.W.3, brother of the deceased. Nilmohan Gope intimated Monoj Kumar Gope, P.W.1, son of the deceased who along with his uncle went to the spot and found his father dead.
- On the way to the police station, they were threatened by Sasthi Gope and Ashadhan Gope. Written complaint was lodged at Baghmundi Police Station resulting in registration of Baghmundi P.S. Case No.32 of 1998 dated 13.7.1998 under Sections 302/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The charge-sheet was filed before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, who on the basis of the evidence convicted the 6 accused in the instant matter.
ISSUES RAISED
- What constitute ‘Common Intention’ and whether the present case fulfils its essentials?
- Whether the charge levied u/s. 302/34 is proved against the Sasthi Gope & Ashadhan Gope?
RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT
The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta upheld the conviction and sentence of the Jagan Gope, Bhadru Gope, Jishu Gope and Ajit Gope, whereas the conviction & sentence of Sasthi Gope and Ashadhan Gope were set aside, opining the following observations:
- “Common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is a species of constructive liability which renders every member of a group who shares such intention responsible for the criminal act committed by anyone of them when such act is done in furtherance of the common intention. Common intention, however, cannot be confused with similar intention. Although accused persons may have similar intention to commit a crime, say murder, until and unless the pre-requisites of : (a) pre-consent, (b) presence and (c) participation in respect of each accused are established, it cannot be said that they shared common intention and be culpable for the crime committed by any of them in furtherance to such intention.
- Although there is some evidence that Sasthi and Ashadhan had enmity with the deceased and may have tried to obstruct P.W. 1 and 3 from going to the police station, there is no evidence on record that they were present at the place of occurrence and participated in the assault and murder of the victim with Jagan, Bhadru, Jishu and Ajit.
- I am not willing to give much credence to these pieces of evidence to come to a conclusion with regard to presence and participation of Ashadhan and Sasthi in the crime. Enmity is a double-edged sword. While it gives justification to commit the crime, it is also a vital motivation for interested witnesses to falsely implicate innocent persons in the crime. Although the principle “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is inapplicable in Indian jurisprudence, evidence of interested witnesses requires to be subjected to stricter scrutiny so that their overzealous versions do not rope in innocent persons along with the real offenders.
- Although, I am convinced with regard to the roles of Jagan, Bhadru, Jishu and Ajit in the murder of the deceased, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to Sasthi and Ashadhan.”
Leave a Reply