Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 52
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.
Kishan Rabha - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 348 of 2010
Decided On : 15-02-2019
K. Sarma, Adv., Md A Hussain, Adv., D. Das, Adv., A.K. Gupta, Adv., R.J. Baruah, Adv.
The main legal point established is the application of Sections 448 and 385 of the IPC in cases involving criminal trespass, extortion, and threat, and the reliance on corroborated evidence for establishing guilt.
Headnote:
ULFA - Criminal Trespass - IPC 448, IPC 385 - The judgment discusses the application of Sections 448 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case involving criminal trespass and extortion by members of ULFA. The court analyzes the evidence of trespass, threat, and identification of the accused, ultimately affirming the conviction under Sections 448 and 385 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an incident where members of ULFA trespassed into a house, demanded money, and threatened the occupants with pistols. The accused was convicted under Sections 448 and 385 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused trespassed into the house with the intent to extort money, but failed due to the arrival of local people. The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 448 and 385 of the IPC, considering the evidence and lack of illegality in the lower courts' findings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the accused, the evidence of trespass and threat, and the applicability of relevant sections of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the corroborated evidence of the informant and other witnesses to establish the accused's complicity in the offense. The lack of challenge to the identification and the positive evidence led to the affirmation of the conviction.
Final Decision: The accused was sentenced to the period already undergone during the legal battle, considering the lengthy duration of the case.
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam representing the State respondent.
2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.06.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Criminal Appeal No.20/2005, arising out of G.R. Case No.477/1997, convicting the accused/petitioner under Section 448/385 of the IPC, sentencing him to under to R.I. for two months under Section 448 of the IPC and R.I. for four months under Section 385 of the IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, one Abdur Rahim lodged an FIR before the O.C, Mornoi Police Station alleging inter alia that three persons came to their house and demanded Rs. 15,000/- from him by showing threat of pistol as on 04.06.1997 at about 7:45 P.M., by introducing themselves as member of ULFA organization. But as the informant raised alarm, the local people arrived and while the miscreants tried to fled away, they were caught red handed along with the pistols and handed over to police. The informant identified those miscreants as Ahim Rabha, Saidul Rabha and Kishan Rabha.
4. On the basis of the FIR, police registered a case against three accused persons under Sections 448/387/34 of the IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. During the investigation, one of the accused namely Ahim Rabha died in the hospital and the accused Saidul Rabha turn absconder. The remaining accused Kishan Rabha (present petitioner) faced the trial, who denied the charge that was framed under Sections 448/387/34 of the IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.
5. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the defence examined none. The plea of the defence is of denial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused person under Sections 448/387 of the IPC and sentenced him to R.I. for three months under Section 448 of the IPC and R.I. for six months under Section 387 of the IPC.
6. On appeal being preferred by the petitioner, the learned appellate Court while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence to two months under Section 448 of the IPC and four months under Section 385 of the IPC, by holding that the offence under the offence under Section 385 of the IPC will be attracted instead of Section 387 IPC and also the fact that the matter is 13 years old.
7. Challenging the impugned order of the Sessions Court, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the learned Court has failed to appreciate the matter in proper perspective of law, as there was no proper identification of the accused persons by the witnesses and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Further contention of the petitioner is that he was caught at a distance of one kilometer from the house of the informant while he was going on the road and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence as to use of pistol by the accused petitioner to the effect that with such pistol he has threatened the informant by demanding money. Alternatively there is prayer for some leniency because of the pendency of the case since long back from the year 1997, whereas the other accused persons have absconded and died and only the present accused/petitioner has faced the trial.
8. I have heard the submission of Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner who has reiterated the ground that has been taken in the appeal memo. Also heard the learned counsel for the State respondent and gone through the materials on record as well as gone through the evidence on record.
9. So far as the evidence of the informant Abdur Rahim is concerned, he as PW.1 has substantiated his allegation that has been made in the FIR that on the date of occurrence three youths came inside
