Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 229 (GAU)

Kamada Das and Ors. v. State of Assam

2012-02-17

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2012
1. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the convict/petitioners and also Heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P, representing the State-O.P. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2004 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 1(4)72003 upholding the judgment and conviction dated 21.10.2003 passed by learned C.J.M., Cachar, Silchar in GR Case No. 2987/1999 sentencing all the accused to pay fine of Rs.100 for the commission of offence punishable under section 143, IPC and Rs. 200 each in commission of offence punishable under section 427, IPC and in default of payment of fine S.I. for 15 days each of the accused. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 29.9.1999 at about 5.30 a.m. all the convict/petitioners along with others formed an unlawful assembly entered into the plot of land covered by Patta No. 6 and Dag No. 21 which was in the possession of the informant Smt. Dipali Rani Das and destroyed the standing paddy planted thereon by her son Shri Pradip Kr. Das on the previous day. An FIR was lodged by her and on the basis of the same, Katigora P.S. Case No. 278/99 was registered under section 143/447/427427/323/354, IPC. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against all the convict/petitioners under section 143/447/427/352, IPC. The learned CJM framed charge against all the convict/petitioners under the aforesaid sections. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses including the informant herself but the accused persons adduced no evidence in their defence. They took stand of complete denial only. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence on record convicted and sentenced the convict/petitioners and the learned appellate court also dismissed the appeal filed by them against the said conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Ms. Sarma, learned counsel for the convict/petitioners strenuously argued that the learned courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record and came to wrong finding resulting into passing of order of conviction and sentence. To establish her submission, she has taken me through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. Examining herself as PW1, Smt. Dipali Das, deposed amongst others that she was in possession of a plot of land on which her son, Shri Pradip Das sow paddy on the previous day of the date of occurrence. To establish her submission, she has taken me through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. Examining herself as PW1, Smt. Dipali Das, deposed amongst others that she was in possession of a plot of land on which her son, Shri Pradip Das sow paddy on the previous day of the date of occurrence. The convict/petitioners came in a group and destroyed the paddy planted by her son. Amongst them accused Shri Pintu son of Kamada, who is also an accused in the case, assaulted her by a bamboo lathi (stick). She however, stated in her deposition that there was a rivalry with the accused persons over the land as no boundary was put up to demarcate the land. She also stated that she did not file any case for confirmation of possession of the disputed land. 5. PW2, Sri Pranoy Biswas, was corroborating the evidence of PWl while he deposed that he was at the relevant point of time in his house situated at about a distance of 200 cubit and he saw the alleged occurrence. He denied the suggestion that being the employ of the informant he gave false evidence against the accused persons. 6. PW3, Shri Ajoy, is an independent witness insofar as he stated that he is not an employee of the informant and he was out for fishing at a nearby nullah from where he could see the alleged occurrence. 7. PW4, Sri Nitai Das, is a neighbour. He deposed that having heard "halla" he came to the place of occurrence. He deposed that he resides near the house of the informant and so he prevented Pradip Das son of the informant, from going to the place of occurrence. 8. I have carefully appreciated and considered the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. They have proved the presence of the accused/petitioners at the place of occurrence. None of them has stated that the accused persons were armed with any weapon. They have not supported the allegation of the informant that accused Pintu Das assaulted her by bamboo lathi. However, all the prosecution witnesses have proved that the accused persons after gathering at the place of occurrence, destroyed the paddy planted on the land in question. 9. It may be noted that there is no injury report to testify the claim that the informant was assaulted by a bamboo lathi by one of the accused persons. However, all the prosecution witnesses have proved that the accused persons after gathering at the place of occurrence, destroyed the paddy planted on the land in question. 9. It may be noted that there is no injury report to testify the claim that the informant was assaulted by a bamboo lathi by one of the accused persons. 10. The presence vis-a-vis the gathering of the accused persons at the place of occurrence who resorted to act of destruction of paddy planted by the informant on the land in question having been proved, I am of the considered view that the learned appellate court below rightly upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and no interference with the same is called for. However, on the question of sentence it is found that there is nothing on record on the loss of amount suffered by the informant due to destruction of the paddy planted by her son. In my considered view, the interest of justice would be met, if the fine amount is reduced to Rs. 50 each for commission of offence punishable under section 143, IPC and Rs. 1000 each in commission of offence punishable under section 427, IPC, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 10 days for each of the convict/petitioners. Accordingly, the order of conviction passed by the learned courts below stands upheld with modification in the sentence and fine as indicated above. 11. It is directed that the convict/petitioners shall deposit the fine amount with the court of learned C. J.M, Cachar, Silchar within a period of two months from today and if the amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the informant after due verification/identification. 12. This petition stands disposed of. 13. Return the LCR forthwith. _____________