Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1176 (GAU)

State of Assam v. Abdul Kalam

2018-08-09

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJIT SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj in Sessions Case No.32/2008, whereby he has acquitted respondent Nos.1 to 6 of the charges under Sections 148, 341 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution case, Respondent No.1 is father of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, whereas Respondent No.2 is their close associate. Few days prior to the date of incident, Respondent No.1 had a quarrel with Suruk Ali over an issue relating to football match. Respondent No.1 even lodged First Information Report about the incident against Suruk Ali at Nilambazar Police Out-post. But, due to intervention of some villagers, Respondent No.1 withdrew the report with an understanding that the dispute would be settled in village bichar. Pursuant to this understanding, Respondent No.1 and Suruk Ali also deposited Rs. 5000/- as security with the middle man as per condition of village bichar. But, soon thereafter, Respondent No.1 withdrew the amount. Village bichar, therefore, could not be held. Thereupon, Respondent No.1 threatened to kill Suruk Ali and likewise, Suruk Ali threatened to kill Respondent No.1. 3. After few days i.e. on 18.3.2006, sometime during afternoon, Suruk Ali went to Nilambazar to attend the weekly market but he did not return home. His son - Md. Setab Uddin (PW-1), therefore, along with other relations and villagers made a search for him, but in vain. Md. Setab Uddin then also informed the police that Suruk Ali was missing. However, on the morning of 19.3.2006, dead body of Suruk Ali with injuries was found lying in a paddy field by Lalon Mian (PW-6). Faizun Bibi (PW-4), wife of Suruk Ali, lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit-9) on the third day since recovery of the dead body. Md. Setab Uddin then also informed the police that Suruk Ali was missing. However, on the morning of 19.3.2006, dead body of Suruk Ali with injuries was found lying in a paddy field by Lalon Mian (PW-6). Faizun Bibi (PW-4), wife of Suruk Ali, lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit-9) on the third day since recovery of the dead body. In the absence of any eye witness, the police arrested the respondents on suspicion and filed a charge sheet against them relying upon the following circumstances :- (i) On the night of 18.3.2006, all the respondents were found holding a meeting in the market of Nilambazar; (ii) On 18.3.2006, Suruk Ali did not return home from the market; (iii) On the night of 18.3.2006, the respondents were found in a paddy field near the place of occurrence with weapons in their hands; (iv) Thereafter, all the respondents were found returning village through a path and their clothes were stained with blood; (v) On the night of 18.3.2006, the respondents were later found bathing in their pond and leaving their houses after locking the door; (vi) On the morning of 19.3.2006, dead body of Suruk Ali was found lying in a paddy field. 4. The trial court, after carefully scanning the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, held that none of the circumstances were proved and otherwise also the circumstances do not connect the respondents with the killing of Suruk Ali. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal. 5. It is argued on behalf of the State that the trial court has committed an illegality in acquitting the respondents by wrongly appreciating the evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. After hearing the respective counsel for the State and Respondents and having perused the record, we are also of the view that the prosecution has grossly failed to prove its case against the respondents. 7. As mentioned above, respondent No.1 is father of Respondent Nos.3 to 6 and Respondent No.2 is their close associate. Also, on 18.3.2006, there was a weekly market at Nilambazar. Therefore, the respondents' holding a meeting in the market is not unnatural. There is even no evidence to suggest that the meeting was held by the respondents for designing a plan to kill Suruk Ali. Also, on 18.3.2006, there was a weekly market at Nilambazar. Therefore, the respondents' holding a meeting in the market is not unnatural. There is even no evidence to suggest that the meeting was held by the respondents for designing a plan to kill Suruk Ali. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that the respondents would hatch a plan to kill Suruk Ali by openly holding a meeting in a market place. 8. Moinul Ahmed (PW-7) has deposed that while he was returning from market on the night of 18.3.2006, he found Nazib Ali (Respondent No.1), Monowara Hussain (Respondent No.3 and Ali Hussain (Respondent No. 6) near the place of incident with weapons in their hands. But, he did not state this fact in his earlier police case diary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Wahab Ali (PW-2) has testified that while returning home on the night of 18.3.2006, he found some persons near the place of occurrence, but he could not identify them. This witness did not disclose even this fact in his earlier police case diary statement. The trial court thus has rightly held that the prosecution could not establish the circumstance that respondents were seen with weapons in their hands near the place of incident on the night of 18.3.2006. 9. Md. Setab Uddin is son of Suruk Ali. According to his evidence, he along with relations and other villagers had searched for his missing father Suruk Ali. He also says that he had even lodged a report of missing at the Police Station. But in the report, there is no mention by him that he saw the respondents with weapons in their hands and their clothes were stained with blood. In his police case diary statement also recorded on the next day, i.e. 19.3.2006, he did not mention anything about this circumstance. Not only this, some of the prosecution witnesses (PWs 2 to 7), who had participated in the search with Md. Setab Uddin have not stated in their evidence that they were informed by him of this circumstance. Therefore, the evidence of Md. Setab Uddin that he saw the respondents with weapons in their hands and their clothes were stained with blood becomes wholly unreliable. 10. Setab Uddin have not stated in their evidence that they were informed by him of this circumstance. Therefore, the evidence of Md. Setab Uddin that he saw the respondents with weapons in their hands and their clothes were stained with blood becomes wholly unreliable. 10. The circumstance that the respondents were taking bath in their pond and some of them left their house after locking the door does not in any manner connect them with the killing of Suruk Ali. 11. For these reasons, we affirm the findings of the trial court and dismiss the appeal.