The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the accused under Sections 341, 325, and 34 IPC.

JUDGMENT And ORDER :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

2. These two criminal revision petitions are taken up together filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. by two accused/convicts assailing the judgment and order dated 13.06.2013, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, whereby, the petitioners were convicted under Sections 341/325/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for three months under Sections 341/34 IPC, RI for a period of six months under and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 325/34 IPC and in default of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

3. The further challenge made is the decision of the appellate court dated 17.10.2013 passed in 32(3)/2013 & 33(3)/2013.

4. Though the accused preferred two independent criminal appeals, and such appeals were also dismissed, however, taking note of the fact that the trial was a common trial and the judgment of the trial court is also a common judgment, these two revisions were taken up together as recorded hereinabove.

5. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.05.2009 at around 09.00 AM while the informant Sri Binanda Kumar Gogoi, Deputy Manager of Betjan Tea Estate, along with Sri Santanu Phukan, Assistant Manager and Bistu Tanti, Labour Sardar were inspecting the workers at Section 8-B, all of a sudden, the accused persons attacked them with fist, blow with lathies and sharp weapons. Accordingly, Makum PS Case No.45/2009 under Sections 341/325/307/34 IPC was registered. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed against the two petitioners under sections 341/325/307/34 IPC and Section 307 IPC being exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions, the committal Court committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia for trial and thereafter, the said case record was transferred to the learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia.

6. Accordingly, charges were framed under Section 341/325/307/34 IPC and offences were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the trial proceeded.

7. To prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses including the Medical Officer, the injured witnesses, some other eye witnesses and the Investigating Officer. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the defence did not adduce any evidence though their plea was total denial.

8. After appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as recorded hereinabove and acquitted them from the charges under Section 307 IPC. Being aggrieved, the connected appeals as recorded hereinabove were preferred, however, the appeals also met with the same fate of dismissal and accordingly, the present revision petitions are filed.

9. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that from the evidence of the injured witnesses as well as the projected eye witnesses, it is not disclosed any overt act of the individual petitioners to convict them under Sections 325/341 IPC with the aid of section 34 IPC, inasmuch as according to Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel in absence of such material, both the Courts below could not have convicted the petitioners and therefore, both the learned Courts below had committed patent error of law and illegality.

10. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the presence of the accused petitioners in the place of occurrence even was not established. The accused were neither identified by the victims/witnesses during the course of their trial nor any of the witnesses including the injured witnesses had taken the name of the accused petitioners during their evidence in chief. According to him, even the testimony of the Doctor does not suppo