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

2021 Supreme(Gau) 368

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUMAN SHYAM, PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, JJ.
Kobbad Ali @ Kobat Ali @ Kobat Master And Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr – Respondents
Crl.A.276 of 2015, 62, 107, 61 of 2016, 266 of 2015
Decided on : 17-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR.A AHMED

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 147/148/341/149/325/326/323/302 and 304 Part –II – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 and 161 - Offence of murder – Examination of accused – Unlawful Assembly - Appeal against convicted - Appellants in Crl. A. No. 61/2016, viz. 1. Motiur Rahman, 2. Samsul Hoque, 3. Sukumuddin as well as the sole appellant Mahmud have all been convicted under Section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine - Convicted under Sections 326/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and also to pay fine - It appears from the record that out of these five appellants, Sahidul Islam is already out on bail and remaining four appellants - unfolded from the materials available on record, is to the effect with President going on a motorcycle - Sultan, forming an unlawful assembly and on being armed with deadly weapons restrained them - On being attacked Ali and Kalimuddin ran away from that place and took shelter in the house of a relative Md. Abdul Hamid whose house was located nearby - Accused persons had also caused grievous injuries on Kalimuddin. On receipt of information about incident brothers came to the place of occurrence - Owner of house and his son Saukat Ali had tried to resist assailants but both the father and son were also attacked by the accused persons, as a result of which, they had also suffered grievous injuries – Held, Appellant Abul Hussain in Crl. Appeal and appellant Motiur evidence available on record does not conclusively establish their complicity in commissioning the crime - There is reasonable doubt as regards their actual involvement in occurrence and therefore, we are of the opinion that benefit of doubt must also go in favour of the aforementioned appellants - case of the sole appellant in Crl. Appeal evidence available on record does not, in our view, prove the charge under Sections 302/149 IPC against him beyond reasonable doubt - evidence to show his presence at place of occurrence, as noted above, it is doubtful as to whether he was a part of the unlawful assembly or had shared the common object to assault the victims - benefit of doubt must go in favour of appellant - belated attempt to give a twist to the prosecution case – Court find that evidence of DWs-1, 2 and 3 relates to some other incident that allegedly took place on an earlier date - we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that charges brought against appellants - Conviction under Section 302/149 of the IPC - Crl. Appeal No. 62/2016 also stands allowed - Crl. Appeal No. 266/2015 stands allowed

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of five Criminal Appeals preferred by as many as 24 (twenty four) appellants, assailing the judgment and order dated 31-08-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in connection with Sessions Case No. 57/2006. The 13 (thirteen) appellants in Crl. A. No. 276/2015, viz.

1. Kobbad Ali @ Kobat Master, 2. Kamaluddin @ Kamal Mandal, 3. Somesh Ali @ Somej Ali, 4. Abdul Wahab @ Afa, 5. Dildar Hussain, 6. Atowar Rahman @ Atabor Ali, 7. Lukman Ali, 8. Saimuddin @ Sainuddin, 9. Nur Hussain, 10. Moinul Haque, 11. Ayub Ali, 12. Kazimuddin, 13. Montaj Ali; the 2 (two) appellants in Crl. A. No. 107/2016, viz. 1. Abul Hussain @ Hussain, 2. Iman Ali; the 3 (three) appellants in Crl. A. No. 61/2016, viz. 1. Motiur Rahman, 2. Samsul Hoque, 3. Sukumuddin as well as the sole appellant in Crl. A. No. 62/2016, viz.Sultan Mahmud have all been convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of Moslemuddin, Alebuddin and Mukam Ali and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine. However, the 5 (five) appellants in Crl. A. No. 266/2015, viz.1. Rafikul Haque, 2. Kafiluddin @ Kafel, 3. Hajibur Rahman, 4. Showkat Ali and 5. Sahidul Islam have been convicted under Sections 326/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and also to pay fine. It appears from the record that out of these five appellants, Sahidul Islam is already out on bail and the remaining four appellants, viz. Rafikul Haque, Kafiluddin @ Kafel, Hajibur Rahman and Showkat Ali have already served their jail sentences during the pendency of the appeal. It also appears from the record that by the order dated 27-02-2017 passed in I.A.(Crl.) 62/2017 and I.A. (Crl.) 63/2017 arising out of Crl. Appeal No 276/2015 the five appellants i.e. 1. Kobbad Ali, 2. Atowar Rahman, 3. Lukman Ali, 4. Sainuddin and 5. Nur Hussain were granted bail and accordingly they are also out on bail. Besides, appellant Sukumuddin in Crl. Appeal No. 61/2016 was granted bail by the order dated 07-06-2017 passed in I.A.(Crl) No 229/2017 arising out of Crl. Appeal No 61/2016.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the materials available on record, is to the effect that on 28-03-2004, at about 10:00 a.m. Md. Moslemuddin, along with the President of Kasumara Gaon Panchayat viz. Md. Kalimuddin, was going to Nagarbera Bazar on a motorcycle. On their way, the accused persons viz. 1. Moinal Hoque, 2. Lokman, 3. Dildar, 4. Sainuddin, 5. Rahijul Hoque, 6. Kabbat Ali Master, 7. Samsul Hoque, 8. Kafaluddin, 9. Sames Ali, 10. Nur Hussain, 11. Montaz, 12. Dildar Hussain, 13. Hazi Mandal, 14. Soukat Ali, 15. Kamaluddin, 16. Afa Sheikh, 17. Amjal Ali, 18. AbulHussain, 19. Imam Ali, 20. Sukumuddin, 21. Matiar, 22. Abbar Ali, 23. Ayub, 24. Atabor Rahman, 25. Kajimuddin, 26. Mahidul and 27. Sultan, forming an unlawful assembly and on being armed with deadly weapons such as Dao, Phala, Dagger, Khukri, Kerech, Lathi, Holonga etc; had restrained them. On being attacked, Md. Muslem Ali and Kalimuddin ran away from that place and took shelter in the house of a relative Md. Abdul Hamid whose house was located nearby. However, the above-named accused persons had chased them and entered into the house of Md. Abdul Hamid. They had killed Muslem Ali by stabbing him with deadly weapon. The accused persons had also caused grievous injuries on Kalimuddin. On receipt of information about the incident the brothers of Muslem Ali, viz. Mukam Ali, Akram Ali, Alebuddin, Moinul and Altab came to the place of occurrence. Then the accused persons had attacked them also and killed Alebuddin and Mokam by using deadly weapons and had also caused grievous injuries on the person of Akram Ali, Moinul and Altab Hussain. The owner of the house Md. Abdul Hamid and his son Saukat Ali had tried to resist the assailants but both the father and son were also attacked by the accus

        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
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top