Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
DELOWAR HUSSAIN S/O UZIR ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 198 of 2012
Decided On : 29-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J. AHMED.
For the Respondent: D. DAS.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence of trespass and intimidation, emphasizing the need for credible witness testimony.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 401 and 397 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447 and 506 - Acquittal of accused - The petitioner challenged the acquittal of respondents under IPC sections for trespass and criminal intimidation, arguing that the trial court failed to appreciate evidence properly. The trial court found contradictions in witness statements and insufficient evidence of illegal entry or threats. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 21, 22)
(B) Evidence - Appreciation of evidence - The trial court's assessment of witness credibility and evidence was deemed appropriate, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that respondents interfered with fishing on his land, leading to threats and theft. The trial court acquitted the respondents due to lack of evidence. (Paras 3.1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly assessed the evidence and found no basis for conviction under the alleged charges. (Paras 21, 22)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the adequacy of evidence for establishing the charges of trespass and intimidation. (Paras 19, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence to support allegations of criminal conduct. (Paras 21, 22)
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This is an application filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the impugned Judgment dated 30.09.2009 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar) (in short ‘SDJM’), Goalpara, Assam in G.R. Case No. 862/2006 under Sections 447/506/34 of IPC, whereby the accused/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1. On 25.09.2006, the present petitioner, as a complainant, filed a complaint case before the learned SDJM, Goalpara, against the present respondents Nos. 2 and 3, alleging, interalia, that he and his father had created a bandh to catch fish on their own land. However, on 12.09.2006, at about 2:30 P.M., respondents Nos. 2 and 3 unduly interfered with the work of the petitioner/complainant and his father, forcibly taking fish valued at Rs. 500/- and threatened to kill them.
3.2. On 16.09.2006, the local public held a meeting regarding this event, during which the complainant was separately pressured to marry one Sokina Khatun or pay an amount of Rs. 70,000/-. Consequently, the case was referred to Lakhipur Police Station for investigation and necessary action, leading to the registration of G.R. Case No. 862/06, registered under Sections 143/447/384/467/506/34 of the IPC. The investigating agency submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 447/506/34 of the IPC.
3.3. The prosecution examined a total of seven numbers of witnesses to prove the case against the accused persons. However, after hearing the arguments from both parties, the learned SDJM, Goalpara in its judgment dated 30.09.2009, acquitted the accused persons of the charges in G.R. Case No. 862/06 under Sections 447/506/34 of the IPC.
4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2009, passed by the learned SDJM, Goalpara in G.R. Case No. 862/06 under Sections 447/506/34 of the IPC, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
5. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective, resulting in a wrong decision and the subsequent order of acquittal, which is liable to be set aside and quashed. He further submitted that the occurrences took place on 12.09.2006, and 16.09.2006; however, the complaint was lodged on 25.09.2006. The delay of nine days has been explained in paragraph 3 of the complaint petition, which was subsequently registered as G.R. Case No. 125 dated 05.10.2006, by the Officer-in-Charge of Lakhipur Police Station.
6. Moreover, PW-Nos. 1 to 5 has adduced corroborated evidences, enabling the prosecution to establish the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this evidence in the proper context, arrived at the wrong finding. And hence, the impugned Judgment is not sustainable in law and should be set aside and quashed.
7. The learned Trial Court also failed to consider the contention of the charge-sheet, which indicated that the accused persons admittedly threatened the life of the informant, trespassed into the informant's dwelling, and committed theft of fish from the petitioner’s land. This aspect was overlooked by the learned Trial Court, which concluded that there were contradictions in the evidence of the PWs, resulting in the acquittal of the accused/respondents.
8. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the accused/respondents filed a case with false allegations of rape against a minor victim involving the petitioner’s brother, solely to harass the petitioner. The complaint in the present case was lodged on 05.10.2006. In an attempt to further harass the petitioner and his brother, anoth
