IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NO.1 KAMRUP(METRO): GUWAHATI SESSIONS CASE NO. 354 (K)OF U/S-143/436 OF IPC. (G.R. case No.

Transcription

1 1 IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NO.1 KAMRUP(METRO): GUWAHATI PRESENT: SMTI. BIJAYLASHMI BORUAH. Addl.. Sessions Judge, No.1 Kamrup (M), Guwahati SESSIONS CASE NO. 354 (K)OF U/S-143/436 OF IPC (G.R. case No of 2010) State of Assam -versus- 1. Prasanta Kalita 2. Appu Deka 3.Rubul Saikia 4.Jagannath Das 5.Nayanjyoti Saikia 6. Bhajraj Chetry 7. Jagat Boro 8. Bipin Boro 9. Ajay Deka 10.Islam Babul Pathak 11.Diganta Bordoloi (Accused Persons) For the Prosecution : Ld. Addl. P.P. Mr. G. Das For the accused : Ld. Advocate Mr. N. Sarmah Evidence recorded on : , & Arguments heard on :

2 2 Judgment delivered on : J U D G M E N T 1. Accused persons namely (1) 1. Prasanta Kalita, 2. Appu Deka, 3.Rubul Saikia, 4.Jagannath Das, 5.Nayanjyoti Saikia, 6. Bhajraj Chetry, 7. Jagat Boro, 8. Bipin Boro, Ajay Deka, 10.Islam Babul Pathak, 11.Diganta Bordoloi stands charge under Section 143/ 436of IPC of alleged commission of offence that they were member of an unlawful assembly and with their common object committed mischief by fire and caused destruction of dwelling house of the priest of Hanuman Mandir on the night of Briefly stated, the prosecution case, is that on , the complainant Dhanjit Bayan of Chandmari P.S. lodged a written complaint with the Officer in Charge of same Police Station stating amongst others that on the same day, early in the morning accused Md. Islam Ali, Rubul Saikia, Apu Roy, Prasanta Kalita along with others destroyed the Karmauddami Labour Union Office situated at B.G. Yard by setting fire for which the said office was fully destroyed. Hence the case. 3. On the strength of the written report the Officer in Charge, Chandmari Police Station registered Police Station case N0. 539/2010 under Section 143/436 of IPC and commenced the investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation the police laid the charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 143/436of IPC to face trial in the court of law. 4. On receipt of the charge sheet, against the Hajoti accused learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati transferred the case to the file of learned Special Judicial

3 3 Magistrate, Assam, Guwahati. The accused persons were produced before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam, Guwahati, who took cognizance of the offences.the offences u/s 143/436 IPC are being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions the case was committed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam, Guwahati on , after observing the requirement under section 207 Cr. P.C. 5. On receipt of the case for trial on commitment Sessions case No. 354(K)2013 was registered and transferred to this court. Thereafter, on scrutiny of the copies furnished under section 173 Cr. P.C. there was adequate materials to proceed against the accused persons Under Section 143/436 IPC, Accordingly, formal charges under the said sections of law were framed against the accused persons by my predecessor in office and the same on being read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. At the trial, prosecution examined in all five witnesses PW1 Shankar Dutta, PW2 Dilip Das, PW3 Dhanjit Bayan, PW 4 Biju Kr. Deka and PW5 Durgeswar Kalita. Prosecution exihibited the FIR and seizure list marked as Exhibit I and exhibit II and signatures on these documents marked as Exhibit I(i) and II(i) but no document was exhibited by defense. 7. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. However, the accused persons led no evidence in defense. 8. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the points for determination are set up and framed as under.

4 4 (i) Whether the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of that assembly was to set fire house of the priest of the Hanuman Mandir. And (ii) Whether the accused persons committed mischief by fire at the house of the priest intending to cause destruction of his house which was ordinarily used as a dwelling house. 9. I have heard arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for both the sides and also scrutinized the evidences on record in its entirety. Decision thereon with reasons for decision:-- For convenience both the points have been taken together for discussions on the materials available on record. 10. PW1 Shankar Dutta deposed that he knows the accused. There was an office of the Karmadami Labour Union at B.G. Yard Bamunimaidam, the same was constructed temporarily on Railway land with split bamboo. He also stated that the above office was burnt down by some body on one night of 2010, he did not mention any specific date. He further stated that he went to the spot on the next morning and saw that the office was burnt completely. 11. PW2 Dilip Das has stated that he know the accused persons. He was working as a labour at Railway Godown at Bamunimaidan at the time of the incident. There was a house made of split bamboo in front of the Railway go-down and the same was used as their office. On the night of the incident the

5 5 house was burnt down by the accused Rubul Saikia, Islam Ali and other accused persons. He along with Indra Boro, Dhruba Deka, Biju Deka, Durga Kalita guarded the house and so they saw the incident. He along with his companions filed FIR at police station in the morning. During cross examination the witness stated that the office was on Railway land and the G.R.P. Station was at 100 meter away from the Office. During cross the witness also stated that there was no permission to guard, the office was declared illegal at the time of the incident. He was guarding from 25 meter away and he saw the accused persons in the light of fire. He denied the suggestion that he did not see who torched the office. He also denied the suggestion that he himself torched the office and submitted false case to disrepute the accused persons. 12. PW3 Dhanjit Bayan is the complainant and he stated that he knows the accused persons. At the time of incident he was working at Railway Godown at Bamunimaidan as headman of the labourers. There was a office of the labourers on the Railway Land. He also stated that some one burnt the Office on the day of incident. The witness stated that he was informed by the persons guarding the office at night namely Dilip Das, Durga Kalita, Indrajit Boro, Dhruba Deka etc. that the accused persons had torched the office and so he filed the FIR at Chandmari Thana. Ext- 1 is the FIR and Ext-1(1) is his signature. During cross he denied the suggestion that he was not informed by any one that the office was torched by the

6 6 accused persons and that he had filed false FIR. The witness stated that Indrajit Boro was President of their Labour Union, but he did not file the FIR. PW3 filed the FIR as asked by Indrajit Boro. He denied the suggestion that the office was torched by Indrajit Boro, Dilip Das etc. and they asked him to file false FIR. He also denied the suggestion that he adduced false evidence. 13. PW 4 Biju Kr. Deka stated that he knows all persons and he was working at B.G. Yard along with 11 numbers of accused. The witness stated that their office was in front of Bamunimaidam B.G. Yard and the accused are headman of labourers. The witness also deposed that the labourers work under them. There was dispute among them in respect of work allotment and there was hot situation. This witnesses also deposed that on the morning he saw that the office was burnt down and he does not know who torched the office. During cross he deposed that the office of the Karmodami Labour Union at B.G. Yard was torched. The Office was on Railway land. Their Labour Union had been banned by D.C. and Labour Commissioner. 14. PW5 Durgeswar Kalita deposed that he was labour leader in 2010 and there was dispute between Islam and Rubul at that time. The witness also deposed that he closed the office in the evening and went away and on the next morning he saw that the office was burnt. The witness also deposed that

7 7 he does not know who had torched the office, how it was torched and why it was torched. The witness further stated that police interrogated him, investigated and police seized broken pieces from the office and his signature was collected. Ext-2 is the seizure list and Ext-2(1) is his signature. During cross he stated that he does not remember as to when there was dispute between the Union and Rubul and Islam. There was no fighting. He does not know the time of the incident and the office was made of split bamboo and he signed as per direction of police. 15. Before evaluating the evidences on record in its proper perspective, it is apposite to mention that the accused persons have been charged on the allegation that they were member of an unlawful assembly, and with their common object committed mischief by setting the dowelling house on fire and caused destruction of aforesaid house of Priest of Hanuman Mandir. 16. It reveals from evidences of prosecution witnesses that PW1 Shankar Dutta, PW 4 Biju Kr. Deka and PW5 Durgeswar Kalita deposed that the Karmauddami Labour Union Office situated at B.G. Yard was burnt down, but they did not know who torched the office. PW2 Dilip Das claimed that he has seen the incident, stating that On that night of incident he along with Indra Boro, Dhruba Deka, Biju Deka and Durga Kalita guarded the labour office and the house was burnt down by the accused Rubul Saikia, Islam Ali and other accused persons. But did not mention names of other accused persons except these two. Even the PW2 also did not indicate or pinpointed accused in the dock, that they were involved in the incident.

8 8 17. It transpires from evidence of PW3, that this witness has given different version in his chief itself, first he stated that some one burnt the Office on the day of incident but this version of ststememt was twisted in the same course stating that he was informed by the persons guarding the office at night namely Dilip Das, Durga Kalita, Indrajit Boro, Dhruba Deka etc. that the accused persons had torched the office and so he filed the FIR at Chandmari Thana. PW3 has given two sets of contradicting versions in the same course of evidence in chief. As such it is difficult to choose a single version. Apart from this Pw3, has failed to name the accused persons who are responsible for torching the labour office situated at B.G. Yard. 18. It also appears that the PW3, has confirmed the fact that Indrajit Boro was President of their Labour Union, but he did not file the FIR, PW3 was asked by Indrajit Boro to file the FIR and accordingly FIR was submitted by him. 19. That being so, the evidences of P.W.2 the only eye witness and the PW3, reported witness, who is also informant of this case are most vital witnesses to the alleged occurrence. But the evidence of sole eye witness as discussed above has been presumed to be doubtful. 20. It also transpires from record that the labour office was torched, but the accused persons are charged for torching Priest s house of Honuman Mandir, in fact there is nothing in the record to show that the house of the Priest of Honuman Mandir was torched, for which the accused persons are charged with. There is

9 9 also no evidence to the fact that the accused persons were member of an unlawful assembly and with commom object committed the offence of mischief by setting the house of the priest of Hanuman mandir on fire. Further the evidence of sole eye witness cannot be accepted due to duplicity of his statement in the same course of evidence in chief. As such reasonable doubt has cast in my mind regarding the instant case. 21. Considering all that has been discussed above I find and hold that the ingredient which are necessary to constitute the offence under Section 143/436 IPC are lacking in the instant case and the evidence which are available on record are not sufficient to convict the accused persons under Section 143/436 of the IPC when the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt as such the accused persons are acquitted u/s 143/436) of I.P.C. O R D E R 22. The prosecution is held to have failed to established the charges u/s 143/436) of I.P.C. Act and hence the accused persons namely ( 1. Prasanta Kalita, 2. Appu Deka, 3.Rubul Saikia, 4.Jagannath Das, 5.Nayanjyoti Saikia, 6. Bhajraj Chetry, 7. Jagat Boro, 8. Bipin Boro, Ajay Deka, 10. Islam Babul Pathak, 11. Diganta Bordoloi are acquitted from the charges levelled against them u/s 143/436) of I.P.C. and set all of them at liberty forth with on benefit of doubt. 23. The case stands disposed. 24. The seized articles shall be confiscated to state. 25. The judgment is pronounced and delivered in the open court under my hand and seal of this court today the 19th day of August 2014.

10 10 (BIJAYLASHMI BORUAH) Addl.. Sessions Judge, No.1 Kamrup (M), Guwahati Dictated and Corrected by me. (SMTI. BIJAYLASHMI BORUAH). Addl.. Sessions Judge, No.1 Kamrup(M), Guwahati

11 11 APPENDEX (A).Prosecution Exhibis: Ext. I : FIR Ext. I(i) : Signature on FIR Ext.2 : Seizure list Ext.II(i) : Signature on Seizure List. (B). Defense Exhibits:. Nil C). Exhibits produced by witnesses: Nil. (D).Court Exhibits:... Nil. (E).Prosecution witnesses: P.W.l : Shankar Dutta, P.W.2 : Dilip Das, P.W.3 : Dhanjit Bayan P.W.4 : Biju Kr. Deka P.W.5 : Durgeswar Kalita: (F) Defence witnesses: Nil (G) Court witnesses: Nil (SMTI. BIJAYLASHMI BORUAH)

12 12 Addl.. Sessions Judge, No.1 Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati

13 13