The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt being given to the accused.

MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions Case No. 12/2009. By the said judgment, the accused appellants were convicted under Section 147/435/323/325 IPC and awarded sentence of imprisonment for three months under Section 147 IPC, imprisonment for three months under Section 323, imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 325 ICP and imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation under Section 435 IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 08.04.2008, at about 10.30 in the morning, a mobile set was snatched away from one Oliulla (PW-12). Heated argument and quarrel took place for the said incidence and thereafter eight persons named in the FIR set fire to the house of the informant Abdul Jalil. When they tried to resist the accused persons, the accused persons assaulted Jamaluddin and Roinmon Nessa with lathi. They also assaulted Rafiqul Islam causing injuries on his finger. An FIR was lodged by PW-3, Abdul Jalil, on the basis of which, police registered a case and after usual investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 147/323/324 IPC against all the accused persons named in the FIR.

3. In course of trial, charges were framed against the six accused appellants under Section 147/324/325/436 R/W 34 IPC, to which all the appellants pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses to establish the charges against the appellants. The accused appellants also examined three witnesses in their defence. On appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellants and awarded sentence as indicated above.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused/appellants, preferred the instant appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. D.C. Bora, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam for the State and also considered the evidence and materials brought on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was a quarrel between two parties centering round a mobile phone and both the parties instituted criminal case against each other. It is also submitted that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to bring home the charges against the appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs interference of this court.

7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be beneficial at the outset to scan the evidence brought on record.

8. PW-3, the informant stated in his evidence that the accused Jamaluddin and Kasem snatched away the mobile phone of PW-12 Oliulla. Hearing alarm raised by Oliulla, Jalaluddin (since deceased) arrived the place of occurrence. According to him, Kasem and Jabbar wanted to assault Jalil. He further stated that Rahman (not accused), Rahim (not accused), Salam and Naser assaulted him by rod, lathi etc. Thereafter Kasem and Jabbar asked the other accused persons to set fire to his house. He further stated that accused Gulzar assaulted Roimon Nessa. During cross-examination, he admitted that accused Jamaluddin also sustained injury in the same incident and he also lodged a case, where he was one of the accused. He further stated that Jamaluddin was treated for about 12 days in the hospital for sustaining injuries. It was also admitted by him during cross-examination that he did not see the accused persons setting fire to his house.

9. PW-9, Roimon Nessa stated that mobile pone of Oliulla was snatched by Kasem, Jamaluddin, Abdul Sattar, Gulzar and Rahman and thereafter of all them chased Oliulla and Oliulla took shelter in the house of Jalil (PW-3). According to her, Sattar and Gulzar dealt a dao blow on her head and consequently she sustained severe injuries. This witness also admitted in her cross-examination