Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANDEEP MEHTA, MITALI THAKURIA, JJ.
Shri Mohet Hojai, Son of Shri Thangmai Hojai – Appellant
Versus
The National Investigation Agency, through its Standing Counsel - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.206 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.262 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.286 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.290 of 2017.
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374, 161, 162 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1)(d) - Involved in various terrorist activities - Criminal conspiracy - Appeal against conviction - Appeals are directed against judgment passed whereby appellants have been convicted - Findings recorded by trial Court holding that these allegations stand proved without framing formal charges leads a situation of grave anomaly – Para 230.
Finding of the Court: Prosecution has miserably failed to bring home reliable, legal and admissible evidence so as to prove charges against accused appellants beyond all manner of doubt – Court have concluded that prosecution failed to prove commission of any terrorist act by the DHD(J) or any of its members, charge for offences under Section 16 and 20 of UA(P) Act, which have been found proved against accused Jewel Garlosa and Niranjan Hojai can also not be sustained - No weapon of any kind was recovered from accused and thus, their conviction for offence punishable under Section 25(1)(d) of Arms Act is also unsustainable in eyes of law - Impugned judgment passed by learned Special Judge is hereby quashed and set aside.
Result: Appeals are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
[Sandeep Mehta, J.]
1. These appeals under Section 374 of the Cr.PC are directed against the judgment dated 22.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA in Special NIA Case No.1/2009 [National Investigation Agency (NIA) -Vs- Shri Phojendra Hojai & 12 Ors.], whereby the appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Sl. No. | Name of the accused | Sections of law under which they found guilty | Sentence |
| 1. | Phojendra Hojai | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 12 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 2. | Babul Kemprai | 120-B IPC | RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 3. | Mohit Hojai | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for Life with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 4. | R.H. Khan | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 12 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 5. | Jewel Garlosa | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for Life with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 16 UA (P) Act | RI for Life with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 20 UA (P) Act | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 25(1)(d) of Arms Act | RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 6. | Ashringdao Warissa | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 12 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 7. | Vanlalchanna | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 25(1)(d) of Arms Act | RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 8. | Malswamkimi | 120-B IPC | RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 9. | Niranjan Hojai | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for Life with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 16 UA (P) Act | RI for Life with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 20 UA (P) Act | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 25(1)(d) of Arms Act | RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 10. | Joyanta Kr. Ghosh | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 11. | Debasish Bhattacharjee | 120-B IPC | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 12. | Sandip Ghosh | 120-B IPC | RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. | ||
| 13. | Karuna Saikia | 120-B IPC | RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI for 6 months. |
| 17 UA (P) Act | RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, i/d to further SI f |
Section 145 of Evidence Act reads as cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.
Law is well settled that evidence of an approver should normally not be accepted without independent corroboration.
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 ....
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to inadequate procedural adherence and unreliable evidence.
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
