Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1428
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Sri Deepak Gupta, S/o Sri Jawaharlal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, represented by Divisional Railway Manager, N.F. Railway, - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION (P) NO. 168 of 2012
Decided on : 26-09-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Evidence
Act Referred
RAILWAY PROPERTY UNLAWFUL POSSESSION ACT: S.11, S.3, S.8
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.397, S.411
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.20(3)
EVIDENCE ACT: S.25, S.30
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE ACT: S.3
Headnote
(B) Statements made to the Enquiry Officer under the RP(UP) Act are admissible, as the Officer is not deemed a 'Police Officer' under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 34-36)
(C) The trial court's failure to adequately question the accused under Section 313 resulted in a denial of fair trial rights and affected the admissibility of evidence against the accused. (Paras 40-42)
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner was convicted based on his alleged unlawful possession of railway materials found during police inquiry. The prosecution failed to produce the stolen railway materials in court, leading to a challenge of the conviction based on insufficient evidence and questions of legality in the trial process.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the conviction was unsustainable due to the reliance on inadmissible evidence and lack of sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Addressed whether the statement of the accused was admissible, and if the legal procedures followed during the trial were sufficient to uphold a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's statement was inadmissible under Article 20[3] of the Constitution, and thus the conviction could not stand without this key piece of evidence.
Result: Revision petition allowed; the accused acquitted of all charges.
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Borah, Senior Advocate; Ms. K. Bhattacharyya, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.C. Biswas, Special Counsel, N.F. Railway; Ms. U. Nanda, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the trial and conviction process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and legal standards (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 4. determination of guilt based on evidence discrepancies (Para 44) |
| 5. final order of acquittal (Para 45) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ and/or ‘the Code’] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2012 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’, for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 1[1] of 2011. By the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2012, the Appellate Court affirming a Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Court of learned Special Railway Magistrate [Judicial], First Class, Tinsukia [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’, for short] in C.R. Case no. 37 of 2007, has dismissed the criminal appeal, preferred by the revision petitioner herein as the appellant, finding no reason to interfere with the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2010 of the Trial Court is also under challenge.
2. By the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2010, the Trial Court had returned a finding of guilt against the accused, that is, the revision petitioner herein by holding him guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 [a] of the Railway Property [Unlawful Possession] Act, 1966 [‘the RP(UP) Act’, for short]. The Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The Trial Court had further observed that the period already undergone by the accused shall be set-off under Section 428 of the Code.
3. The genesis of the criminal prosecution under Section 3 [a] of the RP[UP] Act was a First Information Report [FIR] lodged on 04.02.2006 by an Assistant Security Officer for Head – Security for Group General Manager, M/s Oil India Limited before the Officer In-Charge, Naharkatia Police Station, Naharkatia, District – Dibrugarh. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge registered the same as Naharkatia Police Station Case no. 09 of 2006 under Sections 3 79/411 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] on 04.02.2006. After registration, the investigation of the case was entrusted to one Dwipen Kalita, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Naharkatia Police Station.
4. In the FIR, it was inter-alia alleged that when at about 01-00 a.m. on 04.02.2006 the security personnel of M/s Oil India Limited [OIL], led by a Sub-Inspector and a Havildar, were carrying out patrolling in and around the Naharkatia OIL field area they noticed a Truck [Tata] bearing registration no. AS-01/R-8115 parked in front of a scrap damp at Gathupathar Tiniali, Naharkatia. At around 03-00 a.m. on 04.02.2006, they caught thirteen nos. of persons, named in the FIR, when they were loading some OIL materials [pipes] from the scrap damp. When the Truck was checked, recovery of pipes, belonging to the OIL, were made from inside the Truck along with some other stolen materials. The loaded Truck and the thirteen apprehended persons were brought to Naharkatia Police Station by the security personnel of the OIL and they were handed over. The FIR was lodged to take necessary measures and to bring the culprits within the purview of investigation.
5. After registration of Naharkatia Police Station Case no. 09 of 2006, one J. Mushahari, a member of Railway Protection Force [RPF], Mariani wrote to the Office In-Charge, Naharkatia Police Station on 05.02.2006 on the subject, ‘Seizure of Railway materials’. In the Letter, it was mentioned that it came to the knowledge of the RPF that a Truck bearing registration no. AS- 01/R-8115 was k
