Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, (ITANAGAR BENCH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Bopa Wangnow, Son of Late Khoapang Wangnow - Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented by the Public Prosecutor and Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 21(AP) Of 2022
Decided On : 29-02-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Taffo.
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Tsering.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the right to fair trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, due to the trial court's failure to conduct a de novo trial and afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant before framing charges.
Headnote:
Fair Trial Violation - Criminal Procedure - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - 364(A)/121/34 IPC, 10/13 UA(P) Act, 25(1A) Arms Act - The court found that the right to fair trial of the appellant was violated as the trial court did not conduct a de novo trial as mandated by section 319 Cr.P.C. and did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant before framing charges. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside and quashed, and the case was remanded back to the trial court to proceed afresh from the stage of furnishing copies under section 207 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022, passed in Khonsa Sessions Case No.02/2021, where he was convicted under Section 364(A)/34 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the right to fair trial of the appellant was violated as the trial court did not conduct a de novo trial as mandated by section 319 Cr.P.C. and did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant before framing charges.
Issues: The issues raised in the appeal included violation of the right to fair trial, lack of convincing evidence, and failure to provide reasons for the conviction under section 364(A) IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's failure to conduct a de novo trial as mandated by section 319 Cr.P.C. and not affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant violated his right to fair trial, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside and quashed, and the case was remanded back to the trial court to proceed afresh from the stage of furnishing copies under section 207 Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
(Robin Phukan, J.)
Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, representing the State respondent.
2. In this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., the appellant, namely, Bopa Wangnow has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022, passed in Khonsa Sessions Case No.02/2021, arising out of Longding P.S. Case No.39/2017, under sections 364(A)/121/34 IPC read with sections 10/13 UA(P) Act and section 25(1A) Arms Act, by the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order, the learned Court below has convicted the appellant, under Section 364(A)/34 of the IPC, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, with default stipulation.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:-
“On 13.06.2017, at about 16.30 hrs an enquiry report was received from Inspector T. Wangsu of Longding P.S. to the effect that on 13.06.2017 at around 13.30 hrs a group of NSCN-K militant, identified as (i) SS. Lt. Nahbo Wangsu (ii) SS. L/CPL Tainai Wangnowham (iii) SS. L/CPL Palal Wangpan (iv) SS. Pvt. Honchun @ Ahon Wangsa (v) SS. L/CPL Wangthoak Wangsu had kidnapped Mr. Atar Singh Sharma, a businessman of Longding Market for not paying them the extortion money demanded by them. Upon the said report the Officer-in-Charge Longding Police Station registered a case, being Longding P.S. Case No. 39/2017, under sections 364(A)/121/34 IPC read with sections 10/13 UA(P) Act and read with section 25 (1A) of the Arms Act, and carried out the investigation which culminated in filing of charge sheet, being charge sheet No.02/2019 against four accused persons namely (i) SS. Lt. Nahbo Wangsu (ii) SS. L/CPL Tainai Wangnowham (iii) SS. L/CPL Palal Wangpan (iv) SS. L/CPL Wangthoak Wangsu and they were shown as absconder in the charge sheet. One of the accused, namely, SS. Pvt. Honchun @ Ahon Wangsa suffered demise in an encounter. Subsequently, on different dates accused (i) SS. Lt. Nahbo Wangsu (ii) SS. L/CPL Palal Wangpan (iii) SS. L/CPL Wangthoak Wangsu were arrested on the strength of warrant of arrest and committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa. Thereafter, the learned court below had framed charges against the said three accused under sections 364(A)/34 IPC read with sections 384/34 IPC and thereafter had examined five witnesses. Then on 15.03.2022, while witness Atar Singh was examined, he had implicated accused Bopa Wangnow, and then the learned court below had invoked the provision of section 319 Cr.P.C. and impleaded Bopa Wangnow as an accused. As accused Bopa Wangnow was present in the court on that day with his counsel, in connection with Longding P.S. Case No. 14/2017, under section 302 IPC, the learned court below had complied with provision of section 207, by providing him copies and exhibits. Thereafter, the learned court below, hearing the learned P.P. and learned counsel Mr. L. Wangpan for accused Bopa Wangnow, had framed charge against the accused Bopa Wangnow under section 364(A)/34 IPC read with sections 384/34 IPC and on being read and explained over the charges he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the learned court below had recalled the five witnesses examined earlier. Thereafter, the prosecution side had examined another two witnesses. After completion of examination of witnesses the learned court below had examined the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, hearing arguments of both sides, the learned court below convicted the accused persons, including the present appellant under section 364(A)/34 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.”
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:-
(i) The right to fair trial is violated here in this case as the learned court below, having examined witness Atar Singh Sharma,
