Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 294 (GAU)

Bhola Hazarika v. State of Assam

2004-04-28

I.A.ANSARI

body2004
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This revision impugns the judgment and order, dated 22.2.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Crl. Appeal No. 4(5-1)794, upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 411 IPC and the sentence passed against him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 2. The case against the accused-petitioner, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows :- An FIR was lodged at Mahabhairab Police Outpost by one Jagat Chandra Goswami alleging, inter alia, that on the night of 8.7.1984, some miscreants had entered into his dwelling house by breaking open the door and committed theft of the articles described in the FIR. A case was accordingly registered and, during the course of investigation, the police visited the house of the accused-petitioner and recovered, on being pointed out by the accused-petitioner, some articles kept concealed under the ground near the cowshed of the accused-petitioner. On recovery of those articles, the same were identified by the informant, Jagat Chandra Goswami, as the articles which had been stolen away from his house. The articles, so recovered, were accordingly seized. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner, under Section 411 IPC, as recipient of the said stolen articles knowing the same to be stolen. The said charge sheet-included three more accused, namely, Bakul Das, Ruchi Das and Tepuram Das, who were alleged to have committed offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. 3. As accused Ruchi Das absconded, a joint trial was held for the remaining 3 (three) accused persons aforementioned, but, while the charges framed against the accused Bakul Das and Tepuram Das were under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, the present accused-petitioner, Bhola Hazarika, faced the charge framed under Section 411 IPC. All the 3 accused pleaded not guilty to the charges so framed. In support of their case, the prosecution examined altogether 5 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and in their examinations aforementioned, the accused denied that they had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 4. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and in their examinations aforementioned, the accused denied that they had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 4. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, on finding the two accused, namely, Bakul Das and Tepuram Das, guilty of the charges framed against them under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, convict and sentenced them accordingly. So far as the present accused-petitioner is concerned, he was found guilty of the charge framed under Section 411 IPC and he was convicted accordingly and the sentence, as indicated hereinabove, was passed against him. The accused-petitioner preferred an appeal, which was registered as Crl. Appeal No. 4(5-1)/91, against the order of his conviction and the sentence passed against him. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and also the sentence passed against him. The accused-petitioner has, now, approached this Court with the present revision. However, at the time of hearing of the revision, none appears on behalf of the accused-petitioner. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it, indisputably, transpires that a theft was committed, at the house of the informant, Jagat Chandra Goswami, in respect of many articles, including some clothes and gold ornaments. It also clearly transpires from the evidence on record that during the course of investigation, on being led by accused Tepuram Das and Ruchi Das (since absconded), the police visited the house of the accused-petitioner, Bhola Hazarika, and searched the house. Before the search took place, the Investigating Officer (PW 5) called two neighboring witnesses, namely, Nandeswar Nath (PW 2) and one Bijoy Bhattacharjee. The said B. Bhattachagee was not examined at the trial as a witness, but Nandeswar Nath (PW 2) and the Investigating Officer (PW 5) gave their evidence asserting therein that the police did search the house of the accused-petitioner, Bhola Hazarika, on 9.8.1984 and recovered, on being pointed out by the accused petitioner himself, some gold ornaments, which were found kept under the ground at the cowshed of the accused petitioner. The evidence, so given, by the witnesses remained wholly unshaken in the cross-examination. The evidence, so given, by the witnesses remained wholly unshaken in the cross-examination. There is also nothing discernible from the evidence on record to indicate that any person, other than the accused, was also occupant of the said house. The gold ornaments, so recovered, were seized and were identified by the informant as the ornaments, which had been stolen from his house. As the evidence on record clearly proved that the said stolen gold ornaments were recovered from the cowshed of the accused, the accused knew as to where those ornaments were coupled with the fact that the ornaments were kept concealed in the manner as indicated hereinabove, there remained no room for doubt that the accused-petitioner knew that those ornaments were stolen properties and the accused-petitioner had yet kept the same in the manner mentioned hereinabove. 6. Situated thus, the learned trial Court was within the ambit of law, in relying upon the evidence, so adduced, by the witnesses and in convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 411 IPC and, hence, the conviction of the accused-petitioner could not have been regarded as perverse. Logically, therefore, the appellate Court was also wholly justified in dismissing the appeal. 7. Because of what have been discussed above, I see no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused-petitioner. So far as the sentence passed against the petitioner is concerned, the same is also, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be harsh and/or unreasonable. 8. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in this revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. The accused-petitioner, Bhola Hazarika, is hereby directed to forthwith surrender in the Court of the learned CJM, Sonitpur, Tezpur to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed against him. 9. Send back the LCRs. Petition dismissed.