Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 485 (GAU)

Sajid Ahmed v. State of Assam

2012-04-19

P.K.SAIKIA

body2012
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.12.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No.77(S-S)2003 convicting the accused appellants of offence under Section 27 (ii) of the Arms Act, read with Section 25 (i) (a) of the Arms Act and under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default, to rigorous imprisonment for another three months for offence under Section 27(2) read with Section 25(1)(1AA) of the Arms Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to rigorous imprisonment for another three months for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. Both the sentences are to run concurrently as per the judgment impugned. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused appellants preferred this jail appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.12.2001, one Sri Bipin Mura informed the Officer-in-Charge, Amguri Police Station over phone that his Motor Cycle bearing registration No.NL-04-9161 had been lifted at about 7.30 P.M, by some miscreants at gunpoint. On receipt of the aforesaid telephonic information, Amguri P.S. G.D. Entry No.428 dated 21.12.2001 was made. The O/C, Amguri Police Station, immediately alerted of his counter-parts about the lifting of Motor Cycle from the house of Sri Bipin Mura. Subsequently, the accused persons were apprehended and thereafter, a formal ejahar was lodged with Police. On receipt of the F.I.R, the Police registered a case under Section 392 IPC read with Section 25(i)(a)/27(i)(ii) of the Arms Act and ordered investigation. 4. During the course of investigation, the motor-bike was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. The accused persons were also arrested and in due course, the I/O visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, prepared the sketch map thereof, seized arms and ammunitions and got them examined by an armour. The I/O on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial for the offences aforesaid. 5. Though initially, the accused denied the allegations brought against them but subsequently, they admitted that they committed the offence they were charged with. However on completion. 6. The I/O on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial for the offences aforesaid. 5. Though initially, the accused denied the allegations brought against them but subsequently, they admitted that they committed the offence they were charged with. However on completion. 6. Since the offence under Section 392 IPC read with Section 25(i)(a)/27(i)(ii) of the Arms Act are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, before whom the charge was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for disposal in accordance with law. Learned Sessions Judge on receipt of the case on commitment and hearing the parties, framed charge under Section 392 IPC read with Section 25(i)(a)/27(i)(ii) of the Arms Act against the accused persons and the charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. During trial, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. In their statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused persons admitted the charges brought against them, but urged the Court to punish them leniently. Learned trial Court, on conclusion of the trial and after hearing the counsel for the parties, held the accused guilty of offence under Section 392 IPC and of offence under Section 25(i)(a)/27(i)(ii) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to punishment as aforesaid. 8. It is that judgment which has been assailed in this appeal. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and also the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that in view of materials on record, he is not going to challenge the either the conviction of the accused persons of offences under Section 392 IPC and of offence under Section 25(i)(a)/27(i)(ii) of the Arms Act or sentences imposed upon the accused appellants by the trial Court. 9. I have heard the arguments, advanced by the parties. On perusal of the materials on record, keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I have found that in view of the materials on record, the judgment impugned invites no interference by this Court and the same is accordingly affirmed. 10. Consequently, this jail appeal stands dismissed. 11. On perusal of the materials on record, keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I have found that in view of the materials on record, the judgment impugned invites no interference by this Court and the same is accordingly affirmed. 10. Consequently, this jail appeal stands dismissed. 11. Return the L.C.R. to the lower Court along with a copy of this judgment and order. 12. I appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr.R.K. Adhikary, learned Amicus Curiae. He be paid an amount to the tune of Rs.5,000/- as being his fees. _____________