SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Gau) 878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ranjan Gogoi and Ashok Potsangbam, JJ.
Ambar Ali and Anr.
Vs.
State of Assam
Criminal Appeal No. 39 (J) of 2004
Decided On: 08.12.2009

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.S. Chowdhury, Amicus Curiae
For Respondents/Defendant: Z. Kamar, Adv.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147/148/149/448/427/325/323/302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - Compensation - Suffer rigorous Imprisonment for six months and the fine amount, if realised, would be paid to the wife of the deceased by way of compensation - Price of the sold-out paddy and there - Instead of paying the money, a quarrel was ensued and the deceased was chased out of the house of late Jair Uddin by the Appellants and some others named in the FIR - Investigation cited 8 persons as Was including the Doctor who performed the autopsy and the Police Officer who conducted the investigation - Held, Nature of the injuries sustained by the was suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse but no complaint in writing or FIR has been lodged by the alleged victim girl nor by any member of her family against the forcible rape or attempt of forcible rape on her by the deceased. That apart, the alleged victim, was not examined as a witness in the proceedings of the trial and this non-examination is not only fatal to the case of the defence but it has also demolished the plea of the defence that forcibly attempted to commit rape - Court has perused the evidence of the witnesses and also the impugned judgment - Court are of the considered opinion that there are sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the Appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased and as such, the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, on the Appellants, need no interference - Court has also noticed that the two other accused persons, namely were rightly acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge as there was no evidence to bring home the charges framed against the two accused persons - Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

A. Postangbam, J.

1. The appeal is preferred from jail by the Appellants, who have been found guilty of the offence under section, 302/34, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in his judgment dated 9.12.2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 43/2000. By the aforesaid judgment, under appeal, the Appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000,00 each, in default thereto, Appellants were, to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for six months and the fine amount, if realised, would be paid to the wife of the deceased by way of compensation.

2. We have heard Smt. R.S. Chowdhury, learned amicus curiae for the Appellants and Mr. Z. Kamar and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the deceased Mona Miya purchased 8 bighas of land from one Abdul Khaliq, a co-villager, for consideration of a sum of Rs. 30,000 of which Rs. 2,000 remaining as unpaid balance. In order to pay the aforesaid balance amount, paddy worth of Rs. 2,000 was sold, in credit, by deceased Mona Miya to late Jair Uddin, a co-villager of the deceased. On 7.11.1996, the deceased Mona Miya went to the house of Late Jair Uddin to collect the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,000, being the price of the sold-out paddy and there, at about 6 p.m., instead of paying the money, a quarrel was ensued and the deceased Mona Miya was chased out of the house of late Jair Uddin by the Appellants and some others named in the FIR. Later on, the deceased was caught by the accused on the bottom of the Tilla (residential house of the deceased) and assaulted him with lathi, dao and ballam. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on his body and he died on way to the Police Station. Msstt. Narul Nessa, wife of the deceased lodged a FIR on 8.11.1996 to the Officer in-Charge, Jirighat Police Station, alleging that at 6. p.m. of 7.11.1996, the following accused persons namely, Md. Ambar Ali, Md. Fuler Uddin, Md. Jilan Miya, Md. Jamal Uddin and Mr. Jair Uddin came into the house of the deceased Mona Miya and assaulted her deceased husband with dao, ballam and lathi and as a result, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Accordingly, G.R. Case No. 2790/1996 was registered under Sections 147/148/149/448/427/325/323/302, IPC.

4. An inquest was held by the Investigating Officer on 8.11.1996. On the same day, post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was performed at Silchar Medical College and Hospital by the Professor and Head of the Deptt. of the Forensic Medicine. Altogether, the investigation cited 8 persons as P Ws including the Doctor who performed the autopsy and the Police Officer who conducted the investigation.

5. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet and the offences being triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Silchar, on 3.4.2000 to the Court of Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, who framed the charges on 30.3.2001 against four of the five accused persons named in the FIR, i.e., Jamal Uddin, Fular Uddin, Ambar Ali and Jilan Ali for offences punishable under Sections 147/148 and 302, IPC. The accused Jair Uddin expired during investigation and as such, his name was struck off from being an accused in the case. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, after trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the two Appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine.

6. We will now examine the evidence on record and the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kachar, Silchar, to find out whether the conviction and the sentence imposed by the impugned judgment dated 9.12.2003, can be sustained or not.

7. The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, who were said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. PW Nos. 1 and 3 are the brothers of deceased and PW No. 2 is the wife of the deceased. All the PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 ha

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top