Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 503 (GAU)

Manoj Kumar Deb Roy v. State of Assam

2003-11-12

AMITAVA ROY

body2003
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.7.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 16/95 dismissing the appeal and convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 380 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further imprisonment for 10 days. The learned appellate court while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner under the above provision of law reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to two months. 2. I have heard Mr. J. M, Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury for the petitioner and Mr. P. Bora learned State counsel, I have also heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 26.11.1990 the accused-petitioner along with two others forcibly broke open the house which was given on rent by him to the complainant, O.P. No. 2, Moloy Kanti Chakraborty. After entering the house the accused-petitioner ransacked the same and took away medicines, furniture and other articles belonging to the complainant, worth Rs. 77000/-. The complainant is a Homeopath and had stored his medicines and others articles in the said house. The complainant filed a F.I.R. relating to the above incident before the officer-in-charge, Dispur P.S. which was registered as P.S. Case No. 656/90 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 465/90. After the investigation, police submitted a final report. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati which was registered as Case No. 1996 C/91. The learned court below after holding an enquiry issued process against the accused-petitioner. In course of investigation, 3 witnesses were examined. On the conclusion of the trial, the accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced as indicated hereinabove. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned court below in passing the impugned judgment and order totally misread the evidence on record and therefore the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused-petitioner is not sustainable in law and on facts. On the question of sentence, he submitted that the accused-petitioner had been arrested in course of the investigation relating to G.R. Case and was in custody for about 15 days from 21.11.1990. On the question of sentence, he submitted that the accused-petitioner had been arrested in course of the investigation relating to G.R. Case and was in custody for about 15 days from 21.11.1990. Considering the fact that in the meantime, long 13 years have passed and the petitioner is advanced in age, the sentence may be suitably modified so that the accused-petitioner is not called upon to serve a sentence of imprisonment at this distant point of time. In support of the said submission Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on the certified copies of the documents relating to the G.R. Case No. 465/90 indicating that the accused-petitioner had been arrested on 21.11.1990 and was in custody for about 2 weeks thereafter. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, has submitted that the learned court below on a proper consideration of the materials on record convicted the accused-petitioner and has suitably sentenced him after taking note of all relevant facts and circumstances and that there is no further scope to modify the sentence. 6. On a reading of the judgment and order impugned before this court and on a consideration of the materials on record, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite party to the extent that the conviction of the accused-petitioner does not call for any interference by this court. However, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner with regard to sentence cannot be brushed aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. The incident admittedly had taken place in the year 1990. The accused-petitioner was arrested in connection with G.R. Case No. 465/90 relating to the same incident and as the contemporaneous records reveal, he had been in custody for about 2 weeks. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the lapse of time in between it would be too harsh on the accused-petitioner to require him to serve the remaining term of the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned court below. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the argument of Mr. J.M. Choudhury for modifying the sentence. In my opinion, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period undergone in connection with G.R. Case No. 465/90 and a fine of Rs. 7,000 is imposed, it would meet the ends of justice. 7. Ordered accordingly. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the argument of Mr. J.M. Choudhury for modifying the sentence. In my opinion, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period undergone in connection with G.R. Case No. 465/90 and a fine of Rs. 7,000 is imposed, it would meet the ends of justice. 7. Ordered accordingly. The conviction of the accused-petitioner is, therefore, upheld and the sentence is reduced to imprisonment for the period of custody of the accused-petitioner in G.R. Case No. 465/90 and a fine of Rs. 7,000 in default, imprisonment for another week. The impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The accused-petitioner would deposit the said amount of Rs. 7,000 before the learned trial court within a period of two months herefrom. In case the accused-petitioner defaults in making the deposit, he would suffer the sentence as ordered by the learned court below. 8. The learned trial court would ensure that the sentence imposed on the accused-petitioner is carried out. 9. The revision is partly allowed. Send down the records forthwith. Revision partly allowed.