Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 676 (GAU)

Promod Talukdar v. State of Assam

2019-05-30

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State/opp. party No.1. The opp. party Nos. 2 & 3 are absent. 2. The three petitioners namely Promod Talukdar, Tutu Buragohain and Dipu Talukdar has been arrayed as the accused in the FIR pertaining to Noonmati P.S. Case No.53/2008, u/s.341/325/307/34 IPC. The case ended at charge sheet u/s.341/325/307/34 IPC. The case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Case No.153/2015 was registered and the accused/petitioners stood before the trial Court and denied the charges. During the course of proceeding before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), the prosecution examined four witnesses in the meantime. 3. At this stage, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners u/s.482 CrPC, for quashing of the charge sheet and the subsequent proceeding on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties and the case was filed merely on suspicion. The informant and the victim and the witnesses so far examined has also not implicated the present petitioners. As such it contends that further proceeding of the case will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted the relevant documents i.e. charge sheet and the statement of the witnesses and the affidavit sworn by the informant and the victim along with the present petition vide Annexure I to V. 5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State respondent. 6. The respondent Nos.2 & 3 did not turn up before this Court and the notice issued to them also returned unserved. 7. On perusal of the documents like FIR and charge sheet etc., it reveals that the present accused/petitioners herein implicated in the FIR itself as well as in the charge sheet but it is to be noted that the said informant and the victim along with other two witnesses already has given evidence before the trial Court but has not implicated any of the accused persons with the offence alleged. Although they have admitted about the incident of assault upon the victim on the fateful day but it is their version that they could not identify the assailant due to the darkness of the night. 8. Thus from the evidence of four witnesses it reveals that none of them has stated about the name of assailants. That being so, the learned trial Court is in a position to decide the matter on its own merit, even without examining the rest of the witnesses. 9. However, the petitioners have submitted the affidavits sworn by the informant and the victim vide Annexure 4 & 5, which also talks about the compromise between the parties, with the averments that they have no objection if the accused persons are discharged from the charges, but however said informant as well as the victim did not turn up before this Court to apprise the matter. 10. The learned Addl. P.P., Assam, Mr. B.J. Dutta has also submitted that the matter can be easily decided by the trial Court, instead of interfering with the matter under the provision of Section 482 of the CrPC. 11. On perusal of the documents on record including the charge sheet it reveals that out of seven witnesses, four witnesses including the Medical Officer has also been examined by the trial Court and the rest of the witnesses remains to be examined are the I.O. and another witnesses, whereas one of the witnesses i.e. witness No.6, Zakir Hussain is reported to be not found. 12. Taking note of all above and considering all entirety of the matter, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the trial Court and the learned trial Court will accordingly take up the matter on the basis of the evidence already available on record, after examining the I.O. and other remaining witness, if so desire, and dispose the matter accordingly. 13. The interim order stands vacated. All the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on 28.06.2019. 14. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.