Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 882 (GAU)

Dhiren Bora v. State of Assam

2010-11-23

I.A.ANSARI

body2010
1. Having found the accused-petitioner herein guilty of the offence under section 353, IPC read with section 34, IPC in G.R. Case No. 1166/2001, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagaon, convicted the accused-petitioner accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs.1,000 and, in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, passed against him, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 25(N)/2005. By judgment and order, dated 16.8.2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon, while upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner, has converted the sentence from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment. Still dissatisfied, the accused-petitioner has filed this revision. 2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel, for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. V.S Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described, thus : On 6.8.2001, at about 10 p.m, when PW1, a Forester Grade-I attached to the office of the Forest Range Office, Magaon, along with his other staff, was on patrolling duty, on the verbal order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaon, at Telia Gaon locality, they happened to intercept one pull cart laden with one piece of log, but the cart puller managed to flee away leaving behind the pull cart. When PW1 and his associates reached the National Highway at Itachali, a group of 10/12 persons, including the present petitioners, forcibly took away the cart to the premises of M/s. H.B. Saw Mill situated at Itachali. At that time, the accused persons and their associates were all in inebriated condition, they pelted stones and bricks aiming at the forest personnel, but the forest personnel, somehow, managed to escape unhurt. On FIR being lodged, in this regard, by PW1, a case was registered and the log, which was being carried on the pull cart, was accordingly seized. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused-petitioner and three others under sections 353/294/336/34, IPC. 4. During trial, particulars of offences, under sections 353/294/336/34, IPC, were explained to the accused, but the accused pleaded not guilty thereto. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined five witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under section 313, Cr.PC. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused-petitioner and three others under sections 353/294/336/34, IPC. 4. During trial, particulars of offences, under sections 353/294/336/34, IPC, were explained to the accused, but the accused pleaded not guilty thereto. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined five witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under section 313, Cr.PC. In their examination 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 denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 6. Having found the accused guilty of the offence under section 353 read with section 34, IPC, the learned trial Court convicted the accused accordingly and passed sentence against them as mentioned above. As far as the accusations under sections 294 and 336 read with section 34, IPC were concerned, the learned trial court held that no case, under the said penal provisions, could be made out by the prosecution. As the appeal filed by the convicted persons has also failed to yield any favourable result, the present convicted person has filed this revision. 7. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted that the informant, who was examined as PW1, has deposed, in his evidence, that on 5.8.2001, at about 10 p.m., at Itachali, on National Highway, when he and his staff were on patrolling duty, on the order of the DFO, to detect illegal transit of wood, they found one Simalu log being carried in a cart. It is in the evidence of PW1 that on seeing them, the cart puller fled away leaving behind the cart, whereupon they started carrying the cart with the log towards Itachali Police Station, but when they reached near the said Police Station, the accused persons, accompanied by 10/12 more persons, appeared there and resisted them by scolding and pelting stones and snatched away the cart into the premises of a nearby Saw Mill, but witnessing a group of people on road, the accused persons fled away. 8. Though PW1 was put to cross-examination, nothing, in particular, could be elicited from his examination to show that his evidence was untrue, unbelievable or unsafe to place reliance upon. 8. Though PW1 was put to cross-examination, nothing, in particular, could be elicited from his examination to show that his evidence was untrue, unbelievable or unsafe to place reliance upon. In fact, the defence did not dispute the material facts, namely, that the forest personnel were on patrolling duty, they saw a cart puller carrying a log in his cart, they made an attempt to apprehend the cart puller, but the cart puller ran away, whereupon the forest personnel started carrying the cart towards Itachali Police Station and some persons appeared near Itachali Police Station and snatched away the said pull cart in an inebriated condition and that the log was, eventually, seized. The limited defence, which the accused-petitioner took, was that they were not the ones involved in pelting of stones, etc. The suggestion, so offered, was, however, denied by PW1. Except this bald denial, the defence did not substantiate this suggestion by either eliciting from PW1 in his cross-examination or by adducing any evidence in their defence. The evidence of PW1 on all material aspects remained unshaken. The remaining witnesses examined by prosecution, namely, PW2, PW3 and PW4 corroborated PW1 on the material aspects of his evidence. Thus, the evidence, so adduced by prosecution, clearly proved that a group of young men had, indeed, pelted stones and bricks aiming at the forest personnel, they had also taken away the cart from the possession of the forest personnel and carried the same to the said Mill. The acts aforementioned of the accused were directed against the forest personnel so as to deter them from discharging their duty. 9. In the circumstances as indicated above, the learned trial court had correctly taken the view that the accused-petitioners had used criminal force to prevent or deter public servant, (i.e., PW l to PW4) from discharging their duty. This finding has been upheld, as mentioned above, in the appeal. This court finds no error, legal or factual, in appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court and the conclusion reached by it. Situated, thus, it becomes clear that as far as conviction of the accused-petitioner is concerned, the same warrants no interference by this court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. 10. This court finds no error, legal or factual, in appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court and the conclusion reached by it. Situated, thus, it becomes clear that as far as conviction of the accused-petitioner is concerned, the same warrants no interference by this court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. 10. Turning to the sentence, which has been passed against the accused-petitioner, it may be noted that it has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the sentence imposed on the accused-petitioner was severe, particularly, because none of the public servant was hurt in the alleged occurrence of pelting of stones. For the reasons, so recorded, the learned Sessions Judge has converted the rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment. Thus, the nature of imprisonment, to be undergone by the accused-petitioner, has been modified by the learned Sessions Judge. As far the period of sentence is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has not reduced the same.