IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
AJIT SINGH, N. CHAUDHURY, JJ.
Abdul Baten - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam & Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2013
Decided On : 30-08-2016
IPC - Acquittal of accused persons - Sections 457, 354, 323, 149 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of sections 457, 354, 323, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The key legal provisions were interpreted in the context of the incident, including the lack of evidence for specific charges and the burden of proof in an appeal against acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal questioned the acquittal of accused persons from charges under sections 457, 354, 323 read with section 149 of the IPC. The case involved a violent incident where the accused persons forcibly entered a house, inflicted injuries, and looted household articles, ornaments, and money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquittal was based on grounds such as lack of explanation for the death of a deceased accused, the involvement of some witnesses as accused in a cross case, and the absence of evidence for specific charges. The burden of proof in an appeal against acquittal was emphasized.
Issues: The issues included the lack of evidence for specific charges, the involvement of witnesses as accused in a cross case, and the determination of aggressors and victims in a free fight.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof in an appeal against acquittal and the need for sufficient evidence to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was given.
N. Chaudhury, J.
In this appeal, acquittal of the accused persons from charges under sections 457, 354, 323 read with section 149 of the IPC vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2012 by learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri has been questioned. The aforesaid case was tried analogously with Sessions Case No. 120/2006 under sections 149, 342, 323, 302 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution story is that one Abdul Momin Khandakar, as informant, lodged an ejahar with Officer In-charge of Mankachar Police Station on 16.06.2005 alleging that at around 1.00 A.M. on 15.06.2005, the accused persons named therein forcibly entered into the room of Gulzar Ali’s younger sister Ms. Mahiran Begum (Parveen) by breaking upon the door and tried to kidnap her. The family members resisted the accused persons whereupon the accused persons inflicted grievous injuries on the persons of Abdur Rahim, Abdul Baten (appellant herein), Hanufa Khatoon and Motaleb by stabbing them with daggers. They were taken to Gajarikandi Health Centre and they were treated there. Failing in their bid to kidnap Mahiran Begum (Parveen), the accused persons looted various household articles, ornaments and money. As many as 15 names are mentioned in the ejahar. Upon receipt of the ejahar, Mankachar P.S. Case No. 153/2005 under sections 147, 148, 149, 457, 354, 325, 326 of the IPC was registered and investigation started. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the 15 accused persons. One of them, namely, Samsul Bari had died immediately after filing of the FIR as he was also injured.
3. Since this case was analogous to Sessions Case, it was also sent to learned Sessions Judge and thereupon Sessions Case No. 29/2007 was registered. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 149, 457, 354, 323 of the IPC against all the accused persons. The charges were read over to the accused whereupon they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In course of trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses including a doctor.
5. PW 1 is the informant. He stated that he came to know about some disturbance in the house of Azizur Master in the morning. He found Baten and Rahim in injured condition who had taken to Gajarikandi Hospital by hand cart. He was not an eye witness. He filed the ejahar.
6. PW 2, Monowara Begum, is the wife of Azizur Rahman. According to her, Noor Islam, Anowar, Zamer Ali, Ziarul, Zilkat, Manowar, Amirul, Taher, Gaffar, Gani, Mazraf, Motaleb, Khaleque, Tazibar and Shah Alam entered their house by breaking open the door and failing to locate Mehrul destroyed the household articles. They also assaulted Abdul Sahed, Abdul Baten, Abdul Rahim and others. They stabbed Abdul Sahed with ‘sulpi’.
7. PW 3, Dr. Anowarul Islam examined the injuries of Abdul Baten and found that there was a lacerated wound 3 cm long in the right parietal region caused by blunt object. All the injuries were ante mortem and were caused by blunt and hard object. Abdus Sayed was another injured who had suffered lacerated wound 1.5 cm x ½ cm right side abdomen iliac region which is simple in nature and caused by blunt hard object. He had lacerated wound at his right side abdomen and all were caused by blunt hard object. Exhibit 2 is the injury report of Abdul Baten and Abdus Sayed.
8. PW 4, Anupa Begum @ Anufa, said that at night of 15.06.2005 when his husband was absent, the accused persons came into house and looted their shop. When the villagers had come, the accused persons went away. The accused persons assaulted Abdul Rahim, Baten, Zakir and others. In cross examination, she denied that Samsul Bari died in this incident.
9. PW 5, Md. Rafiqul Haque, stated that he heard a commotion at around 2.00 A.M. and then came to know from the villagers that the accused persons including Zamer Ali, Tazer Ali and others went to Aizur Maulavi’s house. He did not see any incident but found that the fence was broken at the place of occurrence.
10. PW 6, Mustt. Aliza Kh
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.