Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 145 (GAU)

State of Assam v. Lebudhar Chutia

2005-02-18

ANIMA HAZARIKA

body2005
JUDGMENT A. Hazarika, J. 1. A judgment of acquittal rendered by the Sessions Judge, Tinsukia is in question in the instant revision petition which was taken up suo moto by this Court. 2. The sole Respondent herein was charged for commission of an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing death of one Sailen Neog at Tinsukia on 8.12.93. 3. The prosecution case, as appearing from the First Information Report (FIR in short) is that, first informant Shri Khageswar Chetia is the near relation of the deceased Sailen Neog, who lodged the FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Tinsukia Police Station, alleging that the accused Lebudhar Chutia assaulted the deceased in front of his house at about 3.30 P.M. causing grievous injury by giving dao blows at various organs of his body. 4. The injured was first removed to Civil Hospital, Tinsukia by his father and own brother and then to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh as the Civil Hospital, Tinsukia referred the case to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh for treatment as the injuries were serious in nature. Therefore, Khageswar Chetia had to lodge the FIR, he being related brother of the deceased. 5. The police initially registered the case under Section 326 I.P.C. and took up the investigation. However, the victim succumbed to the injuries at Assam Medical College at Dibrugarh. Hence, Section302 was added. The police registered the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. 6. After being committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Tinsukia, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. 7. In the trial, the prosecution examined 15 (fifteen) witnesses, including the Doctor and Investigating Officer. Two persons were examined as Court witnesses. Defence did not adduce any evidence. The defence plea was complete denial. 8. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Indian Penal Code , he did not raise any specific plea in his defence and he further stated that he was away from home for a week at the time of occurrence. 9. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of C.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 10 and acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 27.5.99 passed in Sessions case No. 69(T) of 1994, by observing that "prosecution case is not proved." 10. 9. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of C.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 10 and acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 27.5.99 passed in Sessions case No. 69(T) of 1994, by observing that "prosecution case is not proved." 10. I have heard Mr. P. Bora, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner i.e. State of Assam and Mr. J.M. Choudhury, senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N.P. Das, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent. 11. Mr. P. Bora, learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/State submits that the learned Sessions Judge committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment by acquitting the accused/Respondent having failed to take into consideration that, i) There had been a motive of commission of the crime. ii) The medical report fully supported the prosecution case and no contradiction in material particulars has been pointed out in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. iii) The learned Sessions Judge did not analyse the depositions of the witnesses in proving the essential ingredients of Section 300 I.P.C. in the commission of murder of Sailen Neog by the accused person, while coming to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and thus arriving at the conclusion without assigning any reason thereto. 12. Mr. J.M. Choudhury appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the analysis of evidence and assessment of law applied in the instant case was basically correct and therefore this Court need not interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. 13. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that there is sufficient force in the submission of the learned P.P. against the impugned judgment. But in exercising revisional power I have very limited scope in disposing this revision petition. While perusing the impugned judgment, I found that the learned Sessions Judge committed a serious error of law in acquitting die accused without trying to find out the truth as to the commission of such a heinous crime like murder. The decision making process in the instant case is found to be erroneous on the following grounds/reasons apparent on the face of the record of the case. (A) Evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 10 and C.W. 1 not at all considered for finding out the truth. The decision making process in the instant case is found to be erroneous on the following grounds/reasons apparent on the face of the record of the case. (A) Evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 10 and C.W. 1 not at all considered for finding out the truth. (B) Dying declaration made by the deceased before P.W. 2 which was duly proved by the prosecution was not taken into consideration. (C) The evidence of C.W. 1 was disbelieved on avery unsustainable ground. (D) Absconding of the accused immediately after occurrence. In my opinion, non-consideration of these facts by the learned Sessions Judge resulted miscarriage of justice. 14. The acquittal of the accused in the instant case in such a manner resulted in denial of a fair trial. A fair trial is primarily aimed at ascertaining the truth has to be fair to all concerned. The Apex Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158 answered the question as to what is meant by fair trial as follows: The concept of fair trial entails the familiar triangulation of interest of the accused, the victim and society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society are not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. It has to be unmistakably understood that a trial which is primarily aimed as ascertaining the truth has to be fair to all concerned. It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning a Nelson's eye to the needs of society at large and the victims of their family members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Public interest in the proper administration of justice must be given as much importance, if not more, as the interests of the individual accused. In this Courts have a vital role to play. The cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. Public interest in the proper administration of justice must be given as much importance, if not more, as the interests of the individual accused. In this Courts have a vital role to play. The cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Supreme Court has often emphasised that in a criminal case the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being public wrongs in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community as a community and are harmful to society in general. 15. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court referred to above, I am constrained to hold that the learned Sessions Judge miserably failed to find out the truth in the instant case as to the involvement of the accused/Respondent in commission of the crime causing death of Sailen Neog, a young boy in broad day light. The prosecution story was not properly considered while assessing the evidence of record in order to find out the truth regarding allegation against the accused person for causing death of Sailen Neog. This is vital omission on the part of the learned Sessions Judge and in absence of a fair trial in the case it needs interference in the instant case. In the case of Akalu Ahir AIR 1973 SC 2145 , the Apex Court had observed that interference in Revision is called for where the material evidence has been overlooked by the Trial Court. In the present case, we find that the Trial Court has written a cryptic judgment and did not read and consider the evidence at all. The appreciation of the evidence is per se bad, however, we do not propose to express any opinion over it lest it may prejudice the defence as we propose to remit the matter back for fresh disposal. In the case of Ayodha Dube AIR 1981 SC 1415 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court has the jurisdiction and it should interfere with the finding of acquittal in revision where the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence and materials on record as per settled principles and where the appreciation is per se bad. There is no doubt in our mind that due to serious lapses on the part of the trial court, it has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. 16. In the result, the impugned judgment of acquittal is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia for re-hearing. 17. The opposite party (Respondent) is hereby directed to appear in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, on 23.3.05 positively and on his surrender, the learned Sessions Judge will consider for his release on bail till judgment of the case. If the opposite party fails to appear on that date fixed, the learned Sessions Judge may issue warrant of arrest against the accused person for bringing him to the court of law. 18. The learned Sessions Judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of this case within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the case record. 19. No further recording of evidence is necessary in the case. 20. Send down the case records immediately to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia.