SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 2

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S. C. Das, J
Amir Hossain alias Ali and Others v. State of Tripura
Criminal Appeal No. 9/84|Criminal Appeal No. 15/1984|Sessions Trial No. 67 (W.T/S) 1983



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B. Das, Mr. B. N. Majumder

The assembly of individuals armed with deadly weapons, with a common intent to commit violence, constitutes an unlawful assembly under IPC, leading to vicarious liability for all members.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 304, Part II, 326, 324, 323, and 149 - Criminal appeals by accused against convictions for rioting with deadly weapons and culpable homicide - The court highlighted the criteria for 'unlawful assembly' and vicarious liability in cases of collective violence - Established that the appellants, armed with weapons, formed a group with the intent to assault, leading to the death of a victim - Denied the pleas of innocence based on civil litigation claims, substantiating reliance on eye-witness testimony - Convictions under Sections 148 affirmed, while charges under 304 and 326 found misplaced. (Paras 1, 2, 20, 48, 52, and 53)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of family members as reliable - Court highlighted that familial relationships do not inherently compromise witness credibility in violent crime cases. (Paras 16 and 42)

(C) Appeals outcome - Conviction upheld for some, charges amended for others with changed sentences based on detailed scrutiny of evidence. (Paras 52 and 53)

Facts of the case:
The accused, part of a local club, assaulted the informant’s family demanding a subscription for a festival, resulting in the death of the mother of the informant and injuries to others.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly and evidenced group intent to commit violence, justifying their convictions under relevant sections.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were the nature of the assembly, the validity of witness testimony, and the applicability of relevant IPC sections regarding the charges against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that establishing an unlawful assembly entails collective intent, and witness credibility should not be discounted based solely on familial ties.

Result: Appeals partly allowed; convictions under Section 304 and 326 set aside, but the convictions under Section 148 upheld, with amended sentences for some appellants.

Table of Content
1. convictions based on ipc sections (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the incident (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. procedural conduct and charges framed (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. appellant's counsel's arguments on witness reliability (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. assessment of witness credibility (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. prosecution case and rioting explanation (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. prosecution witness testimonies (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. witness accounts corroboration (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. medical evidence aligns with witness accounts (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
10. securing witness credibility and evidence (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
11. assessment of evidences and defense arguments (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
12. defense arguments and civil disputes (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
13. liability under unlawful assembly law (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
14. clarifying intent and charges under ipc (Para 50 , 51)
15. final verdict and disposition of appeals (Para 52 , 53 , 54)

1. These two appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 9/84 and Criminal Appeal No. 15/1984) by six of the accused are directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala dated 19-4-1984 passed in Sessions Trial No. 67 (W.T/S) 1983 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under different sections and passed sentences. There were 16 accused in the case, of whom 6 appellants were convicted and the remaining 10 were acquitted. I shall now refer which of the accused was convicted under which section.

2. All the appellants of these two appeals were convicted under S.148 of IPC and they were sentenced thereunder to undergo R. I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer a further period of 3 months. Appellant Amir Hossen was also convicted under S.304, Part - II of and sentenced thereunder to suffer R. I. for 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which he is to suffer a further period of 3 months. Appellant Birendra Debnath was also convicted under S.326 of and sentenced thereunder to suffer R. I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine he is to suffer R. I. for a further period of 3 months. Appellant Abdul Rahim was also convicted under S.324 of and sentenced thereunder to suffer R. I. for a period of 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to suffer a further period of R. I. for 3 months.

3. The facts of the case which may succinctly be summarised are that the victims and the accused - appellants are residents of the same village viz. Kamrangatali and they are known to one another. There was a Club named Netaji Club near the house of the informant Rakhal Chandra Deb (PW 1) and the accused - appellants were members of that Club. It was alleged that in the morning of the date of occurrence viz. 30-1-1982 one of the accused, namely, Narayan Sukladas along with a few others came to the house of informant Rakhal Chandra Deb (PW 1) and demanded subscription of Rs. 101/- in connection with Saraswati Puja of their Club. The informant expressed his inability to pay such an amount. But this refusal infuriated them to such extent that they threatened them with the dire consequences in case he would not pay the sum by 7 a.m. They also told him that last night he received a sum of Rs. 900/- by selling rice at Agartala and hence why he should not pay the subscription of Rs. 101/-. Saying this Narayan Sukladas and his companions left the house of the informant.

4. But at about 7.30 a.m. when informant Rakhal Chandra Deb was having tea with his mother Biraja Sundari Deb in front of their hut, he noticed accused - appellant Muklesh Rahman was talking with his elder brother Ganesh Deb in front of their house. But while they were talking suddenly appellant Muklesh started assaulting Ganesh Deb (PW 11) with a lathi. As a result of this beating Ganesh fell down on the ground when their mother Biraja Sundari rushed for the







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top