Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 2251
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.
Nirendra Barman And Ors. S/o Sri Bhabendra Barman - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. No.255 of 2013
Decided On : 18-11-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.A K Deka, Mr.K M Haloi,Mr.A Dasgupta,Ms.G Mahanta
For the Respondent: PP, Assam
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges of wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation against the petitioners, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 401 and 397 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120
(B), 147, 294, 342, and 506 - Criminal revision petition challenging conviction of petitioners under IPC for wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation - The court found contradictions in prosecution's evidence particularly regarding the alleged confinement and intimidation, questioning the credibility of the witnesses and the prosecution's motives - The judgment of the Sessions Judge was quashed, highlighting that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2-20)
(B) Criminal Intimidation - Necessity of proof of intention to intimidate - The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate the accused's intention to intimidate, which was not substantiated in this case. (Paras 5, 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were accused of wrongfully confining management staff of Hindustan Unilever Limited for approximately 16 hours, with allegations of threats and physical conditions causing distress. A FIR was filed after delays, raising concerns regarding its validity and the motivations behind it. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The case against petitioners was found lacking in credible evidentiary support, with numerous contradictions and doubts raised about the prosecution's narrative. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, particularly regarding intention and the acts constituting wrongful confinement. (Paras 15-20)
Issues: The primary issues were the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, the interpretation of wrongful confinement, and whether the intent necessary for criminal intimidation was proven. (Paras 5, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The deficiencies in the prosecution's case culminated in a lack of belief in the credibility of allegations against the petitioners. Intention, a critical component of the alleged offenses, was not proven. The court affirmed the need for clear and convincing evidence in criminal convictions. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed; judgment of the Sessions Judge set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the prosecution's case. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's defense claims motivations behind the case. (Para 5) |
| 3. state's counterarguments supporting allegations against petitioners. (Para 6) |
| 4. court’s analysis of evidence and credibility issues. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. finding that prosecution failed to prove its case. (Para 20) |
| 6. conclusion on the quashing of the prior judgment. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.
Heard Mr. K. M. Haloi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, the learned Addl. PP for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Crl.A.No. 09(1)/2013 whereby, the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia in G. R. No. 739/2007 was partly confirmed to the effect that conviction of the petitioners under Section 342 /506 IPC was upheld and confirmed whereas conviction under Section 147 (rioting) was negated.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.07.2007 at about 02.00 PM, about 18 members of the Management staff of Hindustan Unilever Limited, Doomdooma were illegally confined into two separate rooms by the workers union in the factory premises for about 16.00 Hrs. Subsequently, they were rescued with the help of Police and Cr.P.F. in the morning about 06.00 AM. It was also alleged that the air condition was shut off from 09.00 PM onwards and windows and doors were also closed. It was alleged that the accused persons, the petitioners who were members of the workers union criminally intimidated the Management staff with slang and abusing language. On the basis of the FIR filed by one Manash Baruah on 10.07.2007 before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhoomdooma Police Station case No.203/2007 was registered under Section 120 (B)/147/294/342/427/506 IPC .
4. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners. Subsequently, charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 120 (B)/147/294/342/506 IPC . During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses whereas, the defence examined only one witness in their support. On examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied all the charges against them. After completion of the trial, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia vide its judgment and order dated 28.02.2013, convicted the petitioners under Section 147 /342/506 and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default R.I. for two more months) under ; sentence to undergo R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (in default R.I. for one more month) under Section 342 ; sentence to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default R.I. for two more months) under Section 506 . Aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed Crl. A. No. 9(1)/2023 which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, vide the Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2013 which is under challenge in the instant Criminal Revision Petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prosecution case which emanated from the FIR lodged by the Management against the petitioners is totally baseless and the same is a motivated one. The learned counsel submits that there was a long pending issue of non-payment of certain implementation allowance due to the employees by the Management and therefore, there existed a tension in between the Management and the workers union. The learned counsel submits that, in fact, on the date of alleged occurrence of the incidents, there was a prolonged meeting between the workers union and the Management staffs. He submits that though the meeting went on for a long time, nothing as alleged in the FIR had taken place on that date. He submits
