Back
2016 Supreme(Gau) 231
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
A.K.GOSWAMI, INDIRA SHAH, JJ.
Md. Khalilur Rahman & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Assam & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. Appeal No. 222 of 2005 & Crl. Revision Petition No. 718 of 2005
Decided On : 09-06-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. B.C. Pathak, Dr. (Mrs.) M. Pathak, Mr. B. Pathak, Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, Miss L. Rahman
For the Respondents: Ms. S. Jahan
The judgment emphasizes the importance of evaluating evidence to establish the nature of the assault and the sufficiency of proof for the charges. It also highlights the court's discretion in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC - Section 147/148/447/323/324/302/149 IPC - [Section 304 Part-II IPC, Section 147, Section 148, Section 447, Section 323, Section 324, Section 302, Section 149]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute leading to a fatal assault. The appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC for causing the death of the victim. The informant had lodged a complaint against the accused for attempting to take forcible possession of the land and assaulting the victim, resulting in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted some accused and convicted the appellants under Section 304 Part-II IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the other charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence demonstrated the appellants' assault causing the victim's death.
Issues: The key issues included the nature of the assault, the validity of the land dispute, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to determine the nature and extent of the assault. It also evaluated the validity of the land dispute and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the charges.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The plea for conviction under Section 302 IPC was also rejected, and the sentence imposed by the trial court was upheld.
Goswami, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 222/2005 is preferred by Md. Khalilur Rahman @ Khalilur Rahman Laskar and Oliur Rahman Laskar @ Oliur Rahman against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sankar Dev Nagar, Hojai in Sessions Case No. 27(N)/2004 convicting them under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 60 days.
2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 718/2005 is preferred by Md. Shahjahan, the informant of Morajhar Police Station case No. 105/2001, being aggrieved by acquittal of Khalilur Rahman and Oliur Rahman under Section 147/148/447/323/324/302/149 IPC and praying for enhancement of conviction and sentence.
3. Both the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Petition have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. By an order passed on 6.10.2005 in Misc. Case No. 3251/2005, the operation of the judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 was stayed and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 222/2005 were allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon.
5. We have heard Mr. B.C. Pathak and Ms J. Phukan, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 222/2005 and the opposite parties in Criminal Revision Petition No. 718/2005. We have also heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 718/2005 and Ms S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam in both the cases.
6. An ejahar was lodged by the petitioner of Criminal Revision petition No. 718/2005 on 6.8.2001 before the Officer-in-Charge, Morajhar Police Station informing him that at about 7 A.M., 10 accused persons, namely, (i) Md. Khalilur Rahman, (ii) Oliur Rahman, (iii) Abdul Kader, (iv) Bokhai Mia, (v) Bilaluddin, (vi) Faizul Hoque, (vii) Monai Mia, (viii) Razek Ali, (ix) Musst. Rusna Begum and (x) Taslima Begum had assembled armed with spear, lathi, etc., to take forceful possession of the land in his possession and started ploughing. Having witnessed the same, the informant along with the witnesses named therein protested, whereupon accused persons assaulted Alauddin by piercing his chest with a spear and by means of lathi on the head, thereby causing grievous injuries to him. He was sent to government hospital after informing about the incident in the police station and the injured succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Based on the said ejahar, Morajhar Police Station Case No. 105/2001 (Ext.6) under Section 147/148/149/447/326/325/302 IPC was registered.
7. After completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet (Ext. 5) against the present appellants, Musst. Taslima Begum, Musst. Rusna Begum and Md. Bokhai Mia @ Taher Ali, along with nine others who were shown as absconders.
8. The learned Magistrate split up the case against the absconding accused persons and committed the case against the other accused persons to the Court of Sessions as the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Case No. 27(N)/2004 was registered. After hearing the parties, charges under Section 147/148/447/323/324/302/149 IPC were framed. Charges being read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. During trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses whereas defence adduced no evidence. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court, on consideration of the evidence on record, acquitted Musst. Taslima, Musst. Rusna and Taher Ali of the offences charged. The trial court also held that the prosecution failed to prove the offences under Section 147/148/447/323/324/302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants but successfully proved the offence against them
