Conviction for assault requires credible evidence; acquittal upheld due to failure in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1—5 and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent No.6.

2. The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in C.A. Case No.14 (D-3)/2014, whereby the judgment and order dated 11.06.2014, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldoi in G.R. Case No.2102/2010, under Sections 341/323/354/34 of the IPC, is upheld wherein the accused/petitioners were acquitted by the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 01.12.2010, at about 6:00 p.m., when informant, namely, Masina Begum was going alone through the village road, the accused persons, namely, Kudrat Ali, Maksida Begum, Jasminara Begum, Arfan Ali and Minanur Ali, by taking the advantage of darkness, dragged her and disrobed her by removing her clothes and tied by rope with a tree and assaulted, for which she sustained serious injuries on her person. It is further alleged that the accused persons uprooted the hair and kicked at her chest, back & also assaulted by fist and blows. Later on some villagers unfastened her.

4. Describing the incident, informant Masina Begum filed an FIR with the in- charge of Bura Police Outpost which was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Shipajhar Police Station and on receipt of the said FIR, the Shipajhar P.S. Case No 370/2010, under Section 341/326/354/34 of the IPC (corresponding to G.R. No. 2120/2010) was registered and S.I. Muzibur Rahman was entrusted to investigate the case. In course of investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses, send the injured person for medical examination and after conclusion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet vide Charge Sheet No.189/2010, against the accused persons under Section 341/323/354/34 of the IPC to stand trial. The accused were arrested and subsequently were released on bail.

5. On appearance of the accused persons before the Trial Court after finding prima facie case against the accused persons, charges were framed, read over and explained, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the Doctor, who examined the victim woman, whereas the plea of the defence was total denial and in support of their case, they examined two witnesses. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons, finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and set them at liberty, by the judgment and order dated 11.06.2014.

7. The Appellate Court did not interfere into the aforesaid findings of the learned Trial Court on the appeal so preferred. Hence the present petitioner is before this Court to challenge the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

8. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, it is contended by Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court committed grave error of law and facts in passing the impugned judgment, that the learned trial Court had arrived at a erroneous finding, that the learned trial Court did not correctly and judicially evaluate the prosecution witnesses and arrived at a wrong findings and as such it suffers from legality and correctness. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the PW.