Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 663 (GAU)

Musstt. Chayarum Bibi v. State of Assam

2016-07-21

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. This revision filed by the applicant is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 134/2000 by the Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, whereby he has acquitted non-applicants 2 to 11 of the charges under Sections 147, 302/149, 329/149, 427/149 and 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 16.10.96 at about 6.30 p.m., non-applicants 2 to 11 armed with deadly weapons criminally trespassed the shop belonging to Dilip Khan and forcibly dragged him out to the nearest road and caused grievous injuries to him. Thereafter, all of them dragged him towards the river. On seeing the occurrence, Nazir Hussain (PW-6) (brother of Dilip Khan) rushed towards the river and tried to save the life of Dilip Khan. But non-applicants 2 to 11 assaulted Nazir Hussain also. First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Mustt. Chayarum Bibi (PW-1), mother of Dilip Khan on 16.10.96. The police rushed to the spot and commenced the interrogation. The police also sent Nazir for medical treatment to the hospital. 3. During trial, the prosecution failed to prove any injury on the person of Nazir Hussain. The Trial Court, therefore, refused to believe that Nazir Hussain was an eye witness to the incident and raised a serious doubt against the prosecution case. Witness Chayarum Bibi (PW-1) also deposed that Jalaluddin (PW-2) had informed her about the assault on Nazir Hussain by four persons and accordingly, she along with her daughter Harisa Begum (PW-4) went to the place of occurrence but since they did not find anyone, she directly went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report. Investigating Officer, Prakash Singh (PW-8), when confronted with the earlier statement of Chayarum Bibi (PW-1), confirmed that she did not state to him about her being informed by Jalaluddin about the incident. The evidence of Chayarum Bibi (PW-1) and Jalauddin (PW-2) is, therefore, contradictory. Further, Chayarum Bibi (PW-1) has testified that she did not find anyone at the place of occurrence, whereas Prakash Singh (PW-8) in his cross-examination confirmed that she did meet Nazir Hussain in an injured condition and brought him to the police station. The evidence of Chayarum Bibi (PW-1) and Jalauddin (PW-2) is, therefore, contradictory. Further, Chayarum Bibi (PW-1) has testified that she did not find anyone at the place of occurrence, whereas Prakash Singh (PW-8) in his cross-examination confirmed that she did meet Nazir Hussain in an injured condition and brought him to the police station. Jalaluddin (PW-2) has deposed that he saw Dilip Khan being assaulted by four persons and had informed the same to Chayarum Bibi (PW-1), whereafter he went with her to the place of occurrence but Chayarum Bibi (PW-1) has nowhere stated that she was accompanied by Jalaluddin to the place of occurrence. Not only this, Chayarum Bibi (PW-1) in her First Information Report named as many as 10 (ten) accused persons, although Jalaluddin had told her about the involvement of only four persons. The Trial Court has found several such material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment. It is well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in revision by a private complainant, is not called for. This is also not a fit case warranting re-trial. 5. The revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.