GAHC010132342013 2025:GAU-AS:13396 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.A./350/2013 RATHINDRA THAOSEN S/O LATE RABILAL THAOSEN, R/O HAFLONG TOWN NEAR RAILWAY FIELD, P.S. HAFLONG, DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PERMAMENT ADDRESS VILL. LANGTING, P.S. LANGTING, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GUAHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI.

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Advocate for the appellant : Ms U Nanda, Amicus Curiae.

Advocate for the respondent : Mr R J Baruah, APP Assam Date of Judgment : 18.09.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

(N.Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Heard Ms U Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

2. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the Judgment dated 05.10.2013, passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao District, Haflong, in GR Case No. 176/2012, convicting the appellant, herein, under Sections 466/420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 4 (four) years imprisonment on both counts and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) Only, in default, to undergo imprisonment for further 2 (two) months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.03.2009, the appellant, herein, had executed one false General Power of Attorney in the name of Phaijolal Kemprai, son of Late Bidyanon Kemprai and by utilizing the said General Power of Attorney, had received an amount of Rs. 15,696/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six) Only, payable to one Smt Ashu Kemprai, wife and legal heir of Late Phaijolal Kemprai, from the office of the Executive Engineer, North NC Hills Division (Irrigation), Maibang. The said information having been received, the Police received Haflong PS Case No. 103/2011, under Sections 466/420 IPC, against the appellant, herein. On the Trial Court having framed a charge under Sections 466/420 IPC, against the appellant, herein, and the same on being read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and demanded to be tried, and accordingly, the trial ensued.

3.1. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses, while the appellant, herein, had examined 2 (two) defence witnesses. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court basing on the materials coming on record, had proceeded to convict the appellant, herein, under Sections 466/420IPC and sentenced him as noticed hereinabove.

3.2. Being aggrieved, the appellant has instituted the present appeal.

4. Ms U Nanda, learned Amicus Curiae, by taking this Court through the evidences adduced in the matter by the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, has submitted that the signature of Phaijolal Kemprai, as finding place in the General Power of Attorney was not proved. She further submitted that the death certificate of Phaijolal Kemprai was not exhibited during the trial. She further submitted that the plea taken by the appellant, herein, that the said process was so adopted with the consent of Smt Ashu Kemprai, who was the wife and legal heir of Phaijolal Kemprai and the money so drawn was handed over to her was not considered by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned Judgment.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the learned Trial Court, without considering as to whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were established against the appellant, herein, proceeded to convict the appellant in the matter. Similarly, she submits that the ingredients of Section 466 IPC were also not established against the appellant, herein, from the evidences coming on record in the matter. Accordingly, she submits that on an overall consideration of the evidences coming on record, the appellant, herein is liable to be acquitted from the charge under Sections 420/466 IPC, as framed against the appellant, herein, by the learned trial Court.

6