Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUMAN SHYAM, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Ranjan Daimari @ D.R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, S/o- Late Stephen Daimari And 9 Ors – Appellants
Versus
Mathu Ram Brahma @ Mudai, S/O Sri Rasama Brahma And 3 Ors. – Respondent
Crl.A. 195, 154 of 2019
Decided on : 27-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 302, 324, 326, 307, 427 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 10, (b)(i), 16, (1)(a) 13, 18, 20, 45 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Section 3(b), 4(a)(b)(ii) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 196, 313, 306, 164, 281 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 15, 65(B), 25, 26, 27, 81, 57 - Arms Act 1959 - Section 3,7 25 (1-A) and (1-B)(a) - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Section 4,5 and 6 - Bomb Blasts – Murder Offence - Appeal Against Conviction - In bomb blasts carried out in aforesaid nine different places, as many as 88 persons had lost their lives and around 540 persons were critically injured - Blasts had also caused extensive damages to movable and immovable properties. Para 250
Finding of the Court :
These appellants had evidently played a role in sale/purchase of motor cycle used in blast, and to that extent, their disclosure statements pertaining manner in which transaction was carried out may be relevant - However, in absence of any evidence to establish role of these persons in conspiracy leading to serial bomb blasts, they cannot be convicted merely on basis of disclosure statements and pointing out memos even if it is held that they had a role to play in purchase/sale of a motor cycle which was used in blast - On contrary, there is reasonable doubt as to their involvement in conspiracy - Under circumstances, even assuming that name of Jayanti Brahma alias Jugami finds mention in letter “Ext-42” even then, in absence of any other evidence available on record to indicate that this appellant was an active member of NDFB at relevant point of time and that she did play role of a facilitator in execution of bomb blasts, her conviction for committing such serious offence, merely because she went absconding after bomb blast, in Court view, would not be sustainable in eye of law – Court is conscious of fact that prosecution has alleged conspiracy on part of chief of NDFB Ranjan Daimary and its active members in execution of blasts and to that extent, it may not be possible to find direct evidence to establish charge brought under section 120-B of IPC - However, it is salutary principle of law that in a criminal trial, prosecution must succeed in establishing charge brought against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence - Disclosure statement and pointing out memos exhibited by prosecution do not have any evidentiary value, that conviction is based on statement of witnesses recorded under section 164 CrPC, yet, for reasons mentioned herein above and having regard to facts and circumstances of this case, Court is unable to agree with such submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya - As such, Court is of considered opinion that decisions relied upon by learned senior counsel for appellants in support of his above arguments would not have any bearing in facts and circumstances of present case - Conviction of accused/appellant Onsai Boro, accused/appellant Lokhra Basumatary, accused/appellant Indra Brahma and accused/appellant Jayanti Brahma as well as sentences awarded to them by learned trial court are hereby set aside by giving them benefit of doubt - Court, however, uphold and confirm conviction and sentence awarded by learned trail court to remaining appellants/accused persons.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
Suman Shyam, J.
Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge in connection with Sessions Case No.59(K) of 2011, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. Criminal Appeal No.195/2019 has been preferred by 10 appellants viz., 1) Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, 2) George Boro @ John @ Jwankhang, 3) Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogai, 4) Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Kharamswar, 5) Rajendra Goyari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang, 6) Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro, 7) Indra Brahma, 8) Baisagi Basumatary @ B. Bithurai, 9) Lokhra Basumatary @ Lobo and 10) Raju Sarkar whereas, Criminal Appeal No.154/2019 has been preferred by the four appellants viz. 1) Mathu Ram Brhama @ Mudai, 2) Prabaht Boro @ Tepa, 3) Jayanti Brahma @ Jugami and 4) Nilim Daimari @ D. Nizwmsa.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2019 the appellants have been convicted under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 302, 324, 326, 307, 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10, 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and sentenced in the manner indicated herein below:-
2) For the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC the accused/appellants Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, George Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi, Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Khararmswar, Rajendra Gayari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang and Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and fine with default stipulation.
3) For the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC the accused/appellants Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, George Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi, Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Khararmswar, Rajendra Gayari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang and Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and fine with default stipulation.
4) For the offence punishable under Section 4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 the accused/appellants Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, George Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi, Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Khararmswar, Rajendra Gayari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang and Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and fine with default stipulation.
5) For the offence punishable under Sections 13 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the accused/appellants Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, George Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi, Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Kharmeswar, Rajendra Gayari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang and Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and fine with default stipulation.
6) For the offence punishable under Sections 10, 13, 16 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the accused/appellant Jayanta Brahma @ Jugmai, Mathu Ram Brahma @ Mudai and Prabhat Boro @ Tepa were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and fine with default stipulation.
7) For the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 435 IPC, Sections 3(b) and 4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 10, 13, 16 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the accu
In view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object of conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before completion of....
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
Point of Law : When two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be adopted
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
