GOPAL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR INSC 2075

NAME OF CASE GOPAL SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR INSC 2075

FACTS Gopal Prasad Gupta had gone out of his house at about 6 p.m. on 7th June 1982 and when he did not return, his family members went to search for him but he could not be found. Later,Gopal Prasad Gupta's dead body was found in a ditch and in turn Jagdish Prasad Gupta, lodged a FIR at about 2.30 p.m. stating that at about 6 p.m. on the 7th of June 1982 the deceased had been seen with Raghunath Sah and his son Bhushan Sah near the wooden bridge. The accused were then subsequently arrested and on their disclosure statements, a blood-stained axe and a sickle was allegedly used and were recovered by the police. After the police raid a ganji, a spade and a bucket were recovered from the house of Bhushan Sah and Raghunth Sah. The trial court held that the evidence of PW1, to the effect that the deceased had gone with Bhushan Sah on the evening of 7th June 1982 is not reliable, on the basis of PW21 Binod Kumar, who haid said that that the deceased went with him on his cycle up to the water tank. The trial court refused to rely on the confession made by Dasrath, as the recordeding was done through an incorrect procedure and as Dasrath Sah in the course of the trial had alleged that it had been made by him under coercion. The trial court then went on to examine the other evidence. It concluded that from the evidence of PW22 Murtuza Khan it had been established that the dead body of the deceased clad only in a ganji. The trial court relied upon the extra judicial confession made by Dasrath Sah and on the recovery of the sickle made at the instance of Gopal Sah and found corroboration from the fact that he had been seen rushing away from the place of incident. The trial court concluded that the evidence supported the view that Bhushan Sah and Dasrath Sah had been seen near the bridge at about 6 p.m. on 7th June 1982 and the High court agreed with the opinion of the trial court.

ISSUE Whether the evidence so presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

HOLDING No, because the evidence involving Bhushan Sah is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the evidence against Gopal Sah.

RATIONALE the evidences provided by the prosecution that in the statement of PW8 Kameshwar Choudhary that he had seen Dasrath Sah along with the victim near the bridge and that an unidentifiable person was urinating close by and the suggestion that this person was Gopal Sah along with the statement of PW5 Mohd. Nadaf that he saw them moving from the direction of the site of the incident at about 7.30 p.m. or that he had seen the appellant Gopal Sah with a sickle in hand is hardly sufficient to hold him guilty of murder and with the court’s opinion that the an extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, the above mentioned pieces of evidences provided by the prosecution are insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt